Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Education Authorities (Budgets)

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much more money would be available for schools if every education authority had a 95 per cent. delegated budget. [40039]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): In 1995–96, some £650 million more would be in schools' budgets if every LEA were delegating 95 per cent. of its potential schools budget.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however much we spent on schools, members of the shadow Cabinet would still send their children to grant-maintained or private schools, while promoting policies that deprive working-class children and their families throughout the country of the same choice and opportunity?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that the Secretary of State is in charge of Government policy, not Opposition attitudes or policies. He must ask questions that enable the right hon. Lady to explain her policies to the House.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend tell me, then, whether the leader of our party would send his child to the London Oratory school while telling all the kids in Islington to get stuffed?

Madam Speaker: I do my best.

Mrs. Shephard: So does my hon. Friend. 
Unlike some Opposition Front Benchers, Conservative Members believe that grant-maintained schools provide diversity, choice and excellence. The point of my hon. Friend's question is that the money available for grant-maintained schools is not top sliced, so schools have the flexibility to handle all the resources to which they are entitled. It is that independence that makes them such a success, and so popular with parents—including those on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. O'Hara: Is not the truth behind the question that the real problem with education at present is central Government underfunding? Robbing Peter to pay Paul by diverting money from LEA budgets to delegated budgets would do nothing to stop those problems, but it would

undermine core services such as those that deal with special educational needs—to which the Government pay cynical lip service—and advisory services, which are very important if the Government are serious about raising standards in schools.

Mrs. Shephard: I wonder whether I might gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is missing the point. He needs to understand that, if the total amount available to schools is top sliced by LEAs before budgets are set—which happens in many LEAs—schools receive less money. That is what the Labour party's policy fails to address.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of bringing grant-maintained schools within the ambit of local authorities would take away their independence and their drive for excellence in teaching? That is why that policy must be resisted strongly by the Conservative party and the Government.

Mrs. Shephard: As the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has often pointed out, grant-maintained schools are state schools, but they receive 100 per cent. of their budgets rather than a percentage—however it is calculated—from LEAs. That gives them greater flexibility, and more independence to enable them to run their own affairs. That is what they prize, and what gives them quality.

School Funding

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from local education authorities concerning the funding levels for schools in 1996–97. [40040]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Funding for schools is currently under consideration in the public expenditure survey. We have received a number of representations on levels of funding for 1996–97.

Mr. Ainsworth: The whole country knows that last year the Minister's policies deprived schools of £500 million, and led to the sacking of thousands of teachers. Does he intend to restore that money? If not, why not, and if so, why on earth was the action taken in the first place? Are we not in the same position? The Tory Government are cynically looking to cobble together a policy on a matter of public concern immediately before a general election.

Mr. Squire: As the House knows, I cannot comment on the detail of the public expenditure round for 1996–97; the hon. Gentleman and the House will have to be a little more patient and await its outcome. The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I am pleased that, under this Government, we have significantly increased funding for education. Despite its fine words, when it was in power the Labour party cut education funding in real terms. Although the current year's settlement was tight, it was manageable, as has been shown by the fact that many local authorities have managed to fund in full the pay and price increases arising.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that for education establishments with a degree of independence—for example, St. Vincent college in my


constituency, of which I happen to be chairman and which in the past two years has found funds for a splendid new library and refectory—hands-on management is good for facilities, for morale generally and for education standards?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right and I hope that the thrust of his point will be accepted on both sides of the Chamber because the success of local management of schools, of devolved budgets—we have already heard the advantages of grant-maintained schools—and the setting free of further education institutions has transformed those establishments and enabled them to achieve better value for money than under the previous system.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister confirm that local authority associations have advised the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that, even before inflation and the future teachers' pay award is met, a £1.3 billion increase in local authority budgets is required to enable education provision to remain at a standstill? Will he confirm that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces a budget increase of less than £1.3 billion, there will be real cuts in the education service?

Mr. Squire: I suppose that was a nice try, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that it is unrealistic to expect full uprating, year in, year out, for full pay and prices for organisations such as local authorities, which spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year. We expect them and other organisations to make efficiency savings, and we did so this year. If he is saying, in so many words, that he expects full uprating year in, year out for all these things, he is saying that there is no scope for efficiency savings, and that is why his party promises to tax much more.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend accept that there may be pressure next year on primary schools, especially where reserves have been used properly in the last year, and that growing concern exists about the discrepancy, which has arisen since the introduction of the national curriculum, between funding per pupil in the last year at primary school and funding in the first year at secondary school? Will he bear those points in mind in the forthcoming settlement?

Mr. Squire: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's points in mind and I emphasise that the attention that the Select Committee on Education paid to this point was reciprocated by the Government.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that salaries for teachers constitute about 60 to 65 per cent. of local authority education expenditure? If the Government persist in the injustice of not funding the increase that was agreed this year, and if there is no scope for efficiency savings—and there will not be, since authorities have suffered cuts in previous years—will not the Government fail to provide the means for the ends that they specify? Will he name a single Conservative-controlled authority that did not complain about the injustice of funding this year?

Mr. Squire: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if I cannot comment yet on the outcome of the 1996–97 settlement, it follows that I can comment even less on the outcome of the independent standing review body for teachers, beyond observing that, as in all past years, it will

reach its conclusions in the knowledge of the settlement that has been announced. As for representations, without some notice obviously I cannot confirm to him what the comments of individual local education authorities have been.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from Cheshire county council about the resources allocated to the education authority under the standard spending assessment, with particular reference to the fact that the area cost adjustment does not adequately reflect the costs incurred by my county? That view is shared across all the political parties in the county. Will my hon. Friend respond positively to my inquiry?

Mr. Squire: I can confirm that representations have been received. I can also confirm—it would be ungallant not to—that my hon. Friend has been indefatigable in pursuing this point with me in correspondence. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that recently my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced a full-scale review of the operation of the area cost adjustment and its impact within the standard spending assessment.

Ms Estelle Morris: Does the Minister realise how complacent those answers must seem to parents whose children are already in classes of over 40? As the Government are so keen on league tables, is not the Minister ashamed that his education cuts have put Britain at the bottom of the education spending league? Can he explain how he suddenly managed to find millions of pounds for assisted places and nursery voucher paperwork when he could not raise an extra penny for what parents really want—reduced class sizes?

Mr. Squire: The House will note that, not for the first time, Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are taking their cue from the National Union of Teachers. The hon. Lady could not be more wrong. The independent inspectorate, Ofsted, has confirmed that standards are rising at all ages. That is what parents want. They want to know that their children have the chance of a better education than they might otherwise have enjoyed. That is happening under this Government, as independent reports suggest. As the hon. Lady is aware, and as we have said many times, education receives the highest priority from the Government.

Spoken English

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to improve the standards of spoken English in schools. [40041]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: ": I attach a great deal of importance to spoken English, on which I recently made an announcement.

Mr. Butler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the inclusion of a standard mark for spoken English in GCSE certificates in future. Does she accept that the English language, both written and spoken, is our greatest national heritage and that the ability to communicate, which is demonstrated occasionally even in the Chamber, is the most important tool for our young people in an increasingly competitive world?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes. It is obviously important that young people and adults should be able to express


themselves clearly and comprehensibly and that they should be able to demonstrate that they can do so. As my hon. Friend points out, employers have complained that job applicants cannot always communicate clearly. That must be put right and the work of the new campaign group, and all the other measures that we have put in place, will help towards that end.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: How does it improve the standards of spoken English to impose on a county such as Warwickshire the financial crisis that it now faces in education? It faces the prospect of closing its nursery schools and of classes of over 40. Is that a record of which the Secretary of State is proud? What does she intend to do to improve the prospects of the children of Warwickshire?

Mrs. Shephard: The short answer is probably to elect a Conservative council. That was a nice try from the hon. Gentleman. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just said, and as the chief inspector has consistently reported, there is no clear correlation between class size and quality and rising standards. I accept that very large classes are difficult to handle, but the inspector consistently provides contrary advice. The findings at Hackney Downs school, which I am minded to close and on which I am consulting, are interesting. Spending there is exactly two and a half times the national average per pupil and the pupil-teacher ratio is 8:1. I wonder what lessons the hon. Gentleman draws from that.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if improvements in the standards of spoken English are to be achieved, that will require an effort much wider than just from our schools? If the presenters of children's television programmes were to set an example to our young people—such as used to be set by Auntie Muriel—would not that be one step in the right direction?

Mrs. Shephard: I am not sure that even I can remember Auntie Muriel, although I am sure I should, but my hon. Friend's point is well made. Effort across the community is clearly necessary. That is the point of the work of the group that will be campaigning for better standards. Representatives from business, the media, trade unions, sport and education have already been signed up.

Education Funding (Northumberland)

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received about education funding in Northumberland. [40042]

Mr. Robin Squire: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I had a useful meeting with a delegation from Northumberland on 30 October to discuss education funding. We have also received a number of other representations.

Mr. Beith: Did the Minister understand from those representations the effect of standard spending assessments, the capping limit, the teachers' pay settlement and the problems of running an education service in a scattered rural area? Did he realise the desperate state to which those have reduced parents, governors and councillors of all parties, as they look to

the hon. Gentleman to fight for an improvement in the funding for education in Northumberland after the Budget?

Mr. Squire: I confirm that some of the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were raised at the meeting. I made the point then, and I repeat it now, that the one element within the standard spending assessment that is at a higher value than our research would indicate it merits is that for sparsity. That will be of particular benefit to a constituency such as the right hon. Gentleman's. I note that Northumberland, notwithstanding the difficulty of the settlement to which I previously referred, managed to increase its education spending this year.

Teachers (Maintained Sector)

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra teachers could be provided in the maintained sector by an input of £100 million. [40043]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The cost of employing the average teacher is about £25,000. That means £100 million would pay for about 4,000 extra teachers.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that parents are now beginning to realise that £100 million would provide another 4,000 teaching posts in LEA and grant-maintained schools? Is she further aware that parents are contrasting the approach of the Prime Minister, who put £100 million into extra places in private schools, with the approach of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has said that he would use that money to reduce class sizes in maintained schools?

Mrs. Gillan: The abolition of the assisted places scheme would not save £100 million as most of that money would be needed to pay for the children's education in state schools. If we spent £100 million in primary schools, it would reduce the average class size by only half a pupil.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend disregard the politics of envy from Opposition Members? Is she aware that about 750,000 of the nation's children are educated in grant-maintained schools and under the assisted places scheme? Is she further aware that one of those children happens to be the son of the leader of the Labour party?

Mrs. Gillan: I am aware of that fact. I hope that the parents of children on the assisted places scheme will note the Labour party's policy on that scheme. I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said about class sizes. In Hackney Downs, the pupil-teacher ratio is 8:1 and the annual expenditure per pupil for the financial year 1995–96 is two and a half times that in GM schools. It is the quality of teaching that is important, not class sizes.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister tell the nation whether she thinks that it is a good idea for 60,000 pupils to be assisted to escape from what the Deputy Prime Minister described as inadequate inner-city schools or whether, instead, 2 million infant children should be allowed to be educated in classes of no more than 30 so that they can learn to read, write and add up without suffering from the


cuts inflicted by the Government—cuts that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), when replying to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), confirmed will once again be inflicted through reductions in revenue support grant and in other services if the Government go ahead with their Budget proposals, as outlined to the press, on 28 November?

Mrs. Gillan: It goes without saying that the assisted places scheme represents very good value for money. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when Labour was last in power, there were twice as many pupils in primary classes of more than 35. Perhaps he should listen to voices such as those of Mr. Pollard of the Fabian Society, who has criticised the Leader of the Opposition for his policy to abolish assisted places.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: How much of the £100 million does my hon. Friend the Minister believe would get through to the schools to enable them to employ teachers? I cite the example of the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent county council, which received a 2.1 per cent. increase in funding this year but nevertheless increased funding to Kent schools by only 1 per cent.

Mrs. Gillan: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and pupils, governors and teachers outside will do so too. We shall be doubling the assisted places scheme over time and there will, of course, be new money going into the scheme as well as the savings to the LEAs involved.

Unemployment

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who are currently unemployed have been unemployed since April 1992. [40044]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The latest available figures show that the number of people unemployed for three years and over is falling. It stands at 337,622.

Mr. David Shaw: This one is GMB sponsored.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough of the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal with him on the next occasion. I want no parrot-fashion talk here. He will resume his seat; otherwise, I shall use the Standing Order against him.

Mrs. Prentice: Thank you, Madam Speaker. 
Does the Secretary of State feel no shame that more than 330,000 people have been and remain unemployed during the lifetime of this Government? Is she aware that another 8.5 million people have become unemployed twice in that time? Is not it time that the Secretary of State began to do something about long-term unemployment and insecurity at work, instead of continuing with the self-congratulatory tone that is a shameful characteristic of Conservative government?

Mrs. Shephard: I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady does not express her delight about the fact that unemployment in her constituency has come down by 8 per cent. in the past year—what a pity. Clearly, I accept that unemployment, and especially long-term unemployment, is an extremely demoralising experience. Thankfully, the unemployed are not a static mass. Most people leave unemployment very quickly—half of them

do so within three months, two thirds within six months and 80 per cent. within a year. However, it is clearly important to continue to push the trend downwards. We are committed to reducing long-term unemployment. We have a wide range of programmes to help the long-term unemployed and many have successful outcomes.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the participation rate in the United Kingdom is very much higher than in almost any other European country? Will she also confirm that unemployment is very much lower in this country than in Spain, which follows the policies proposed the Opposition?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes, I can confirm that in the United Kingdom the proportion of people of working age in employment is, at 68 per cent., very much higher than the EC average of 60 per cent. That is partly because of the pursuit by some of our European partners of mistaken policies embraced by the Labour party, such as a national minimum wage, which causes unemployment. Any fool knows that, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) once memorably said.

Mr. Meacher: Was it not the Prime Minister who, in a speech on 7 April 1992 entitled "Ten Tory Truths for a Glorious Future", urged people to vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday? How does the right hon. Lady explain that, despite all the programmes to which she has just referred, more than a third of a million people have been continuously unemployed every day since the election? That is an increase of 128,000 since April 1992. Is not that yet another Tory broken promise? Far from producing a recovery, the Prime Minister has brought about the most massive increase in job insecurity since the war.

Mrs. Shephard: I welcome the hon. Member to the Dispatch Box. I am not quite sure in what role he appears—it does not seem evident to his hon. Friends—but his smiling demeanour is always a pleasure. I am surprised that, on his first appearance in his new role, he did not join me in welcoming the news that unemployment has fallen for 24 consecutive months and is now at its lowest point for four and a half years. I am sure that he will put that right next time.

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what comparisons she has made between the United Kingdom's record on reducing unemployment and that of other major EU countries. [40135]

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): The United Kingdom is the only major European Union country in which unemployment is lower than it was three years ago.

Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the country as a whole, and, indeed, in my constituency, unemployment has fallen dramatically over the past two years? Does not that compare favourably with France and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, Spain, where unemployment runs at 22 per cent., but where youth unemployment, largely because of the minimum wage, stands at almost 40 per cent? When unemployment was going up, the Labour party complained and whined, but will my hon.


Friend explain why, now that it is coming down, the Labour party is still complaining, whining, whingeing, and running Britain down?

Mr. Forth: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. He is at least more gracious than Labour Members to welcome the fall in unemployment in his constituency, which, as he points out, has been substantial not only over the past year but over the past several years. That is in contrast to Labour Members who—again my hon. Friend is right—persistently ignore the fall in unemployment, because, I suspect, they are embarrassed by it politically. The real truth is that our record of performance on unemployment—long-term unemployment, youth unemployment or unemployment among men or women—is better than that in most other European Union countries. That speaks volumes for our labour market policies and the strength of our economy.

Mr. Grocott: Instead of comparing unemployment rates in Britain and other countries of Europe, would not it be much more illuminating to compare unemployment rates under this Tory Government with those under Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s? Does the Minister recall, as I do, the job opportunities for school leavers in the 1960s and 1970s and the abundance of apprenticeships? In order to be precise about the extent of Tory failure, will he answer the following question? How many more years would it be necessary for present policies to continue for unemployment to fall to its level under Labour?

Mr. Forth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because in 1979—I pick the date more or less at random—UK unemployment was just below the average in the then European Community. Unemployment in this country today is substantially lower than the European Union average. I accept that the figure is higher now for the rest of Europe and for this country than it was in 1979. That says a lot about the difficulties of the global trading economy, but this country has sustained its record of keeping our unemployment rate below the European rate and has performed better on unemployment than our European partners.

Mr. Tredinnick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that unemployment in Leicestershire has been falling in the past two years? Is it not a fact that, not only in Spain but in Belgium, Italy, Germany and Portugal, unemployment is increasing? What impact would a minimum wage have in this country?

Mr. Forth: I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents not only appreciate the fact that unemployment is falling but understand that our social chapter opt-out has given us protection against the high-cost regime which prevails in so much of the continental mainland and which, sadly, makes so many of our competitors and partners less competitive than we are. That is understood much more by my hon. Friend's constituents than it ever seems to be by the Opposition.

Mr. Janner: The Government do recognise that the current unemployment figures are open to question, to put it mildly, and have asked someone called David Steel to report to them by the end of January on the way in which unemployment figures are produced and on whether the method can be improved. As the Government have seen fit to attempt to abolish the Select Committee on

Employment at the end of February or on 1 March, may we at least have a guarantee that the report will be out and available to the House, as promised, by the end of January?

Mr. Forth: I am surprised, given the hon. and learned Gentleman's position on the Select Committee on Employment, that he is attempting to peddle the sad old story about the inaccuracy of the unemployment figures. He should know as well as I do—he obviously does not—that all the different measures of unemployment, including those internationally accepted by the International Labour Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, well demonstrate that the level of unemployment is what it is, that it is on a downward trend and that it compares favourably with the level in any of the countries that are our partners and competitors. Until the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that fact, we shall not get much further.

Mr. Day: Will my hon. Friend take note that, whenever the unemployment figures come down, the Labour party questions the method by which they are calculated? Has he noticed that, when unemployment rises, Labour Members say that the figures are accurate? They cannot have it both ways. Can they not accept that this Government's policies are working?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; what he describes appears to be the case. Opposition Members must sort out in their own minds what they accept in terms of a measurement of unemployment—the internationally accepted figures to which I referred a moment ago or something else. They would be much better advised to welcome the success we have enjoyed in recent years in bringing unemployment down, although, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we are by no means satisfied by the level. We have many innovative programmes in place to try to help people, especially those who suffer from long-term unemployment. These are working and will continue to work.

Craft Apprenticeships

Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many craft apprenticeships were offered in the United Kingdom in the last year. [40045]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Information on the number of craft apprenticeships offered during the year is not collected.

Mr. Touhig: Craft apprenticeships were once the core of British industry. In 1965, British industry offered 125,000 craft apprenticeships; they have now all but disappeared. The result is a skills shortage which is harming our economic recovery. Will the Under-Secretary explain why Britain is experiencing a massive decline in skills training? Will he comment on an article in the Industrial Relations Journal which says that the Government have become increasingly less helpful in supporting craft apprenticeships and that Tory Governments are concerned about craft apprenticeships because they associate them with the craft unions? Is this


another example of Tory right-wing dogma harming British industry and threatening the skills of our work force?

Mr. Paice: I am afraid that it is a clear example of the hon. Gentleman not having done his homework properly. The fact is that he asked how many craft apprenticeships were offered. Those statistics are not and, to the best of my knowledge, never have been collected. If the hon. Gentleman had asked how many people were on craft apprenticeships at any particular time, I would have told him. The most recent labour force survey, in spring this year, showed that 191,000 people declared themselves to be on apprenticeships and that, of those people, 101,000 were on craft apprenticeships. The labour force survey is the means by which the measurements are collected, and it has been for many years.

Mr. James Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the decline in the building industry could be put down to bad workmanship resulting from the lack of a thoroughgoing apprenticeship scheme? Such an apprentice scheme was the backbone of the building industry at one time. Is there any way in which we can encourage more apprenticeships in the building industry?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend will be aware that the building industry is the only remaining industry with a compulsory levy and a statutory training board, and apprenticeships are still offered in all aspects of the construction industry. The real problem is not the absence of apprenticeships but the trend towards more subcontract work throughout the industry. That matter is now being addressed by the construction industry training board as it reviews its training programmes.

Mr. Byers: The Minister failed to refer to the Government's modern apprenticeship scheme in relation to craft apprenticeships. Was that because of the widespread failure to recruit due to weaknesses in the scheme, with only 4,000 places being filled nationally? Does the Minister acknowledge that training and enterprise councils have had their budgets cut by some £200 million this year? How will a combination of a lack of apprenticeships and training budget cuts give our people the skills they need to get them back into work and to bring prosperity back to this country?

Mr. Paice: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. His appointment perhaps accounts for the vast number of questions that he constantly tables on these issues, despite the fact that virtually all the information that he requests is available in the Library. 
I did not refer to modern apprenticeships, because nobody asked me about them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me about the scheme, because it did not go unnoticed that he tabled a question yesterday about the number of modern apprenticeship starts. The hon. Gentleman failed to point out that the figure of 4,000 starts was for the first month of the scheme—it had only just started. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate his totally unjustified challenge, and the reality is that a vast number of employers are keen to take on employees. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Government hope to get about 30,000 starts in the current year. That statement is already on the public record, and I am happy to reaffirm it to the hon. Gentleman.
As for cuts for TECs, the hon. Gentleman needs to do his homework better. There have been no cuts in the budgets for modern apprenticeships and youth training.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that any decline in craft apprenticeships and training occurred during the years when the smokestack and labour-intensive industries were phased out and when the Labour party, in collusion with the unions, forced the wages of apprentices to levels that made their employment no longer viable?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is quite right. Most reasonable people agree that the wages of people who are learning should be commensurate to their status, but that, as they develop and improve—[Interruption.] On the subject of learning, I am pleased to welcome the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), as he might learn something. The right hon. Gentleman said that any fool knows that a minimum wage will cause a shake-out, and that is precisely the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is referring. If there is a minimum wage which applies to everybody regardless of skill levels, how does one address the need for differentials for those people who have been through apprenticeships? The Opposition have failed year in, year out to answer that question about their minimum wage proposals.

Economic Regeneration, Wolverhampton

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contribution her Department is able to make to economic regeneration in the travel-to-work area containing British Steel Tubes Division, Wolverhampton. [40046]

Mr. Paice: This Department makes a major contribution through the activities of the Employment Service and Wolverhampton training and enterprise council, which has formed a task force with other bodies to help those who are made redundant by British Steel.

Mr. Purchase: That is welcome, but does the Minister not understand that, by Christmas, 1,000 more people in Wolverhampton will lose their jobs at British Steel, Manders Paints and Edge Shoes, with all that that means to those workers and their families? Does he think that it would be meaningful to make a special contribution to the local partnership that we have formed so that we can investigate fully, question and, if necessary, fight those closures and so that we can help those workers who may well be displaced at the end of this particular debacle?

Mr. Paice: I am sure that everybody understands the sadness of people who lose their jobs. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has explained on a number of occasions in the House. It is not for me or the Government to question the commercial judgment of the businesses which employed those people. We have to recognise that the redundancies take place against a background of falling unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency: it has fallen by almost 1,000 in the past year. He will be aware that Wolverhampton has succeeded in the first round of the single regeneration budget in obtaining an extra £16.5 million to be spent in


the area. Of course, there are other businesses taking on new staff. The hon. Gentleman should recognise the good things that are happening, not just the bad things.

Mr. Budgen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the sympathetic way in which he deals with this sad situation. Will he point out that, in the past two years, Wolverhampton has enjoyed a considerable increase in prosperity, particularly in the metal bashing industry, which has enjoyed an enormous increase in exports directly as a result of the depreciation of the currency which followed the events of September 1992?

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. I can count on him always to introduce the European dimension into any question. I am pleased to hear what he has to say about Wolverhampton.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Unemployment (European Union)

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications of the level of unemployment in the EU. [40127]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply. 
I can confirm that employment and unemployment in the European Union will be on the agenda for the next European Council in Madrid in December.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend insist that the Council gives urgent attention to the forgotten army of 18.5 million unemployed in the European Union, a total which has soared by 5 million in the past three years? In particular, could he tell our friends in France, who are at present creating extra unemployment on top of a 12 per cent. total by setting artificial exchange rates, that they could learn a great deal from Britain, which escaped from the exchange rate mechanism and the social chapter and has found that unemployment has been falling ever since?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a most valuable contribution, particularly when he points out that this Government will not accept the social chapter, and neither will we impose the overheads of a minimum wage on the competitive manufacturing base that we have here today. The whole House can welcome the fact that unemployment in this country is down by 713,400 since December 1992.

Mr. Hutton: On the subject of unemployment within the European Union, does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise it as a fact that, since 1979, the United Kingdom has had the third highest unemployment rate within the European Union? When will he drop the damaging dogma of his party and start to work with our European partners to tackle the scandal and the waste of almost 20 million people unemployed in Europe?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is very convenient for the hon. Gentleman to choose 1979, when we had to start the process of undoing the stranglehold that the trade unions had on the British economy, of privatising the industries that are now leading the British recovery across

the world and of creating in this country the enterprise centre of Europe, all in the teeth of Labour party opposition.

Engagements

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40128]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. 
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is travelling to New Zealand to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most significant vote last night was that passed by 587 votes to two, which bans paid advocacy, which was the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life and went further than the Nolan committee, and contrasts sharply with the sheer stench of trade union-sponsored humbug on the Opposition Benches?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out the justification for the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to set up the Nolan committee so that the House would have an opportunity to deal with the matter of restoring public confidence in the House. It was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who ensured that such matters were thoroughly and comprehensively considered. The work was carried out by an independent committee. As a result, the House was able to pass by an overwhelming majority the far-reaching change to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and the Prime Minister were completely out of step with public opinion in wanting to keep the outside earnings of Members of Parliament secret? Does he share my sense of outrage that some Conservative Members are already making it clear that they will not observe the decision of the House? Will he make it clear that that would be totally unacceptable to him and the Prime Minister?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises a most important question for the House. I can say unreservedly on behalf of the Prime Minister and myself, since he asked me specifically, that both of us believe that it is right for all right hon. and hon. Members to enter into the spirit of the letter of the decisions taken yesterday evening. That was the will of the House. As to what the House should determine to do in the event of any right hon. and hon. Member not making such a decision, that is properly a matter for the House of Commons.

Mr. Prescott: In view of his reply, will the right hon. Gentleman now ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his rejection of Labour's proposal to refer the funding of political parties to the Nolan committee? Is it not time that the Prime Minister came clean on where his party gets his money, or has the Tory party got something else to hide?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course, we all know that the Opposition want to pass the cost of party politics


on to the taxpayer. They want one-track Members of Parliament with no outside interests and who are totally beholden to the party Whips, with all the draconian centralisation of power that that would represent. That would be a wholly alien development in the constitutional history of this country.

Mr. Prescott: Why cannot the public know where the Tory party gets its money? Who has paid for a knighthood? Who has bought a peerage? And which foreign business men have bankrolled the party, fleeing the country? I ask him again, what has his party got to hide?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is up to the sort of sleazy politics characteristic of the Labour party. The fact of the matter is that his party has sold out hook, line and sinker to the trade unions—it always has. He is the first person to complain that he has to ring up trade union leaders to ask their permission before he takes a simple decision on behalf of the Labour party.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however hon. Members may have voted in the Divisions last night, those who seek to gain party advantage from the issue simply demean the institution that they claim to honour?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, but he characterises the Labour party in too generous terms. It is undermining the credibility of this House by constantly criticising the performance of a tiny number of right hon. and hon. Members. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who come into this House are motivated by the highest standards of public service.

Mr. Beith: Now that the House has made an important decision, with the votes of hon. Members in all parties, on the conduct of Members of Parliament, would the Deputy Prime Minister move the agenda on to the other things that would make Parliament more relevant to the lives of people, such as electoral reform—because that would make far more difference to the lives of people than even the decisions we made last night—or will he do as the Prime Minister did last night and attach his cause to the side which in the end will lose?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Member may see that as moving the agenda on; I would regard it as moving it back into a wholly unacceptable dark age.

Social Chapter

Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to rewrite the social chapter of the EU. [40129]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. 
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rejected a new social chapter at Maastricht because it would have reduced competitiveness and destroyed jobs. The Government will not accept it, or anything like it, at next year's intergovernmental conference.

Sir Ralph Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the fact that the social chapter has few friends in the House except on the Labour Front Bench, would it not be constructive for the Government

to produce a more acceptable alternative social chapter? Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister urge the Government to make the Right to Work Bill the cornerstone of that new social chapter to eliminate involuntary unemployment and save £5 billion per annum in this country alone?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend brings a particular expertise to this subject and there is a great deal to which we should listen in what he has to say. I know that he will welcome the introduction of the earnings top-up scheme, which is designed to help people move into and stay in work without the burden of a minimum wage, and he also will look forward to the introduction next year of the jobseeker's allowance.

Mr. Keith Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the absence of the social chapter, Britain has the longest working hours, the fewest holidays, the poorest pensions, the lowest wages and the highest levels of job insecurity of all the leading nations of Europe? Which of those facts does the right hon. Gentleman deny, and do they not explain why the British people are longing for a Labour Government with our promise to bring in the social chapter?

The Deputy Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman does not recognise is that Britain has one of the fastest falling levels of unemployment and one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. What he threatens by his proposals is that the flood of inward investment coming here, not only from north America and Asia but from Europe itself, would come to a halt if Labour threw away the competitive advantages that our economy possesses.

Engagements

Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40130]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. 
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that tomorrow the new Gas Act is likely to receive Royal Assent? I remind him that, by opening the market to competition, new entrants are likely to come in and that standing charges in that industry are likely to be a thing of the past in a couple of year's time. As standing charges are widely resented by the elderly and those on fixed incomes, will he urge British Gas and the other utilities to start abolishing those charges now, before competition and a change in the law oblige them to do so?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the privatisation programme, and that includes British Gas, has, of course, been a triumph for British consumers. The fact is that competition has cut prices for gas consumers; standing charges are down by 29 per cent. since privatisation; gas prices are down by over 20 per cent. since privatisation; and the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred has already led to the possibility of experiments in the south-west. I read in this week's newspapers that perhaps another 10 to 15 per cent.


will come off the prices to the domestic consumer as a result of that enhanced competition. What that all stands for is that the Conservative Government, by privatising these industries, have not only created world-class companies but served the consumer in a way that nationalisation could never have begun to do.

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40131]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. 
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Roche: Given that, in the United States of America, it is illegal for foreign nationals to make donations to political parties, why do the Government not introduce the same legislation here? Are the Deputy Prime Minister and the whole of the Conservative Government frightened to let the British people see how the modern Conservative party is funded?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I know of no restriction in this country that says that foreign nationals who are members of trade unions cannot give money to trade unions, which is then directed to the Labour party.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if investment is to thrive, costs must be kept down

and business taxes kept low? Does he therefore agree that it would be a disaster for investment, and therefore for our prospects for growth and employment in the future, if the Labour party were able to implement its plans to allow local authorities to fix their own business rates?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The Labour party in power has always put up costs, prices and taxes. Whether it is a national Labour Government or local Labour government, the same process is at work. In either case, it would be a disaster for Britain's investment potential.

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November. [40133]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. 
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister when he returns what is the precise role of the Deputy Prime Minister? It seems to be costing £40,000 a month for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer even fewer questions than his right hon. Friend.

The Deputy Prime Minister: Just the other day, people were complaining because I had brought £1 billion of Siemens investment to the north-east. I think that I am cheap at the price.

Madam Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make. 
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) recently made serious allegations against parliamentary colleagues. He later withdrew the accusation made yesterday against the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). I asked him to provide written details of his earlier charge against the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and he has now done so. I have studied what he says with care, and I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to look into the aspect that concerns the use of stationery. Whatever the outcome of that inquiry, I do not believe that any of the facts laid before me sustain the charge of corruption in the use of parliamentary facilities. 
Free speech is one of this House's most treasured possessions. For that reason, it must be used responsibly and not abused. 
The hon. Member for Dover should take careful note of that in future. I would prefer his co-operation in this matter than to be compelled to any more drastic course of action.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some hon. Members have drawn a distinction between statute law as such and complying with resolutions of the House. Are the resolutions passed last night to be implemented and honoured? Is it not the case that, if a resolution of the House is passed, it has all the authority of the House of Commons and there can therefore be no excuse whatever for any hon. Member to argue that, because it is not statute law, it has no bearing on him or her?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me hypothetical questions at this stage. It remains to be seen how we begin to implement the resolutions that we accepted last night.

BILLS PRESENTED

METRICATION (REMOVAL OF PENALTIES)

Sir Roger Moate presented a Bill to amend the Weights and Measures Act 1985 so as to remove any criminal penalty upon persons using imperial measures unless it is proved that such use was intended for fraudulent purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

FAMILY HOMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (No.2)

Mrs. Diana Maddock, supported by Mr. A. J. Beith, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Chris Davies, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. David Chidgey and Mr. James Wallace, presented a Bill to make provision, in relation to cases where a dwelling-house is, has been, or was intended to be, the home of two or more persons, as to their respective rights of occupation; to make provision for preventing the molestation of one person by another; to enable a court to include in certain orders under the Children Act 1989 provision relating to the occupation of a dwelling-house; to make provision for the transfer of tenancies between spouses and persons who have lived together as husband and wife; to apply section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 to persons who live together as husband and wife; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 193]

Patients Rights

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give patients certain rights in their dealings with general practitioners.
My Bill would extend the patients charter to give patients certain rights in their dealings with general practitioners. Those rights would include a requirement for GPs in a practice of four or more, where a doctor-patient relationship has broken down, first, to offer a patient a second chance to stay in that practice by counselling that patient and issuing a warning that that behaviour will not be tolerated in the case of bad behaviour or, secondly, to offer the patient the right to visit another doctor in the same practice. Thirdly, if no other GP in the practice is willing to take the patient, the patients charter should include a requirement that patients be given reasons in writing stating why they are being removed from a GP's list. 
This is not a doctor-bashing Bill. I have the greatest respect for our GP service and I recognise the dedication, skill and professionalism of our doctors. However, I believe that there is an injustice against patients and I am sure that, if good will and tolerance were shown by all sides, that injustice might be rectified.
Self-evidently, a good doctor-patient relationship must be based on mutual trust and respect. At present, GPs have the right to request that any patient be removed from their list, and that doctor is under no obligation to say why. 
The consequences of such actions can be very far-reaching indeed. For example, if the patient belonged to a large practice, losing his and his family's right to be registered with their nearest GPs might be extremely inconvenient and might involve lengthy travelling, which obviously incurs extra costs. 
I have a constituent who was struck off—she believes, for contacting her doctor at 8 o'clock at night to ask him to attend a fairly sick five-year-old. The doctor refused, but the child was admitted to hospital the same evening. The mother and the family were struck off, and now she must travel three miles with her youngest children to the next practice. Her youngest child needs to visit a doctor regularly, and that low-income family has been penalised by a doctor who, I believe, knew that he was wrong not to visit the child and covered his action by striking the whole family off his list. 
I know that that is not the usual practice, but that family was never told why it had been struck off. Surely a much better outcome would have been for other doctors in the same practice to take on responsibility for that family. 
Another consequence of being struck off a doctor's list without being given a reason is the great hurt that is felt by many people when they are. 
Another constituent told me that she rarely visited a doctor, but that when she did on one occasion, the receptionist mistook her for someone else and a few words were exchanged. Realising the mistake, my constituent drew attention to it—fairly calmly, she claims—and made an appointment to visit her doctor, only to receive a letter two days later, telling her that she had been struck off. She told me that at first she felt anger

at the injustice and then she experienced a loss of confidence and a feeling of humiliation. She said that she would be very reluctant to visit a doctor again, however ill she felt. 
Another constituent, a very brave 86-year-old, Mrs. Marion Greenwood, a pensioner, was struck off her doctor's list when she was ill. Her daughter, who lives with her, called the GP out when her mother became ill. The GP was angry because it was in the evening and was quite cross with the old lady. Mrs. Greenwood was admitted to hospital a couple of days later in a critical condition. While in hospital, she received a letter from her GP, telling her that she was being struck off and that she should find another doctor. I could go on reciting case after case, but time will not allow. 
Obviously, there are instances when GPs have a legitimate right to say, "I personally cannot treat this patient any more." The following reasons were outlined in the advice given by the General Medical Services Committee last year as acceptable reasons for striking patients off a register. 
A patient may be struck off if there is violent or threatening behaviour towards a doctor and his family, but even then, the GMSC believes that GPs should use their clinical judgment to determine whether a patient's violent behaviour results from his or her medical condition, and that if the patient is mentally ill, consideration should be given to the condition of that patient. 
Other reasons for striking off might be a complete breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship, such as might occur if scurrilous, unfounded allegations were made against a doctor, or prescription fraud or the persistent breaking of appointments, which did not improve after a warning. However, the advice from the GMSC is not firm enough and weighs heavily in the doctor's favour. 
There is growing support for my view. The Association of Health Councils in England and Wales is concerned that patients may be removed from lists simply for making a complaint. One woman told me that she was suffering from a back injury and took her son along to the doctor's receptionist. She could not sit down because of her injury. She was told that she might have to wait and the receptionist asked her to sit down. The woman said that she could not and would prefer to stand. Three days later she received a letter striking her off the doctor's list. I saw the letter and the only indication of why she had been struck off was the sentence that stated:
We hope when you find a new GP there will be comfortable chairs in his waiting room.
That is clearly another exceptional case, but it is unacceptable and exposes the inadequacy of the existing legislation. The woman was struck off the list for something trivial. 
There is a growing perception that clients are being removed from GPs' lists because their treatment is too costly. The advent of the internal market and GP fundholding has fuelled that perception. Unfortunately, information on the number of patients being removed from lists at the request of doctors has been available from the Department of Health only since 1992–93. In that year, the total for England was more than 78,000. Those figures do not differentiate between GP fundholders and non-fundholders, so there is no hard and fast evidence. 
However, there is anecdotal evidence that GP fundholders do not want patients whose care is too costly. The Association of Health Councils in England and Wales has expressed concern. Yesterday we learnt that a doctor in Wales intended to strike eight children off his list to increase his practice income by £2,000. Clearly, that has to stop. It is simply not good enough for the Department of Health to talk about unacceptable behaviour. We are entitled to ask what the Department will do about it. 
Patients trust doctors less because of the introduction of GP fundholding. They are now, almost daily, made aware of the cost of treatment. Where once a clinical decision was given and accepted, there now lurks a suspicion that a treatment might be advised against owing to the cost. The vital ingredient of trust between patient and doctor is being seriously undermined, which is one reason why it is essential to end GP fundholding. 
If implemented, the Bill, which contains moderate measures, could provide the first step towards restoring the trust between patients and their GPs, and I commend it to the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I have considerable sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has said. I do not wish to call a Division, but I want to raise one valid point. 
Our procedure in the House confuses people outside. It is always a pity to excite expectations that one can never fulfil. There is a problem in allowing ten-minute Bills to be introduced within 18 hours of the Prorogation of Parliament. There is no chance of the hon. Lady's Bill, however worthy, passing on to the statute book. It is important for us to put down a marker on the subject. 
I hope that the powers that be—the appropriate Committee—will consider whether or not it would be sensible to stop the ten-minute Bill procedure a few weeks before the Prorogation of Parliament, perhaps providing a half-hour Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning for the purpose. The hon. Lady's speech would have been ideally suited for such a debate. 
I shall not oppose the hon. Lady's leave to bring in her Bill now, but it is a pity that the procedure of the House is allowed to operate in this way.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

PATIENTS RIGHTS

Mrs. Alice Mahon accordingly presented a Bill to give patients certain rights in their dealings with general practitioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, it is a long-standing convention that an hon. Member who opposes a ten-minute Bill is supposed to follow his voice with his vote. I did not hear anyone shout "No". 
What is more, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) said that it would be a good idea to get rid of ten-minute Bills so close to the end of the Session. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Back Benchers have lost opportunities to speak on various issues on a number of occasions in recent years. The ten-minute Bill provides hon. Members with an ideal opportunity to advance propositions, although they may not become law. I hope that you will not give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, or pass it on. 
I should also like to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your view of an hon. Member who opposes a ten-minute Bill while making it abundantly clear that he has no interest in voting against it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 464 of "Erskine May", on which all will be revealed. It explains that an hon. Member may speak against a ten-minute Bill, but need not voice a "No" when the Question is put.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Minister, I must make an announcement. Madam Speaker has accepted a manuscript amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), of which copies are available in the Vote Office and the Division Lobbies.

Clause 2

BASIS ON WHICH COMPENSATION IS TO BE CALCULATED

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 11, at end insert
("or otherwise determined in accordance with the Scheme")

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Maclean: Lords amendment No. 1 makes it clear beyond doubt that the scheme may provide for awards in fatal cases to include, in addition to the fixed-tariff award, additional amounts calculated in accordance with the scheme. That will allow payment to be made for such other elements as reasonable funeral expenses, loss of dependency and loss of parental support. Those elements are not fixed or specified, so provision could not be made for them under subsection (2)(d) as it originally stood. They will be calculated by reference to the circumstances of the case, rather than on the basis of the fixed tariff. The amendment simply ensures that such payments can properly be made. 
Let me now deal with Lords amendment No. 2. On introduction, clause 3(1)(c) enabled provision to be included in the scheme in regard to repayment of compensation for breach of conditions subject to which an award was made. However, the scheme also needs to include provision for repayment in other circumstances, such as when the applicant receives compensation from other sources in respect of the same criminal injury, and when that other compensation was not taken into account when the award was made from our scheme. That simply replicates the situation under the present scheme, and is intended to prevent the applicant from receiving compensation twice for the same injury. As originally drafted, the Bill would not have allowed a provision to be included in the scheme providing for such recovery; it accordingly needed to be amended to permit recovery in those wider circumstances.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am particularly grateful to the Minister for accepting Lords amendment No. 1, which we pursued in the House. It makes the position clear beyond doubt in allowing awards in fatal cases to include funeral expenses and expenses incurred by loss of dependency and loss of parental support. 
Will the Minister clarify the way in which the power conferred by Lords amendment No. 2 will be exercised? I understand the intention of the amendment, which is to ensure that money can be reclaimed. 
I was hoping that the Minister would answer my question, but I apologise for interrupting the conversation that is taking place on the Government Front Bench. 
It is obviously right to deal with cases in which there has been an oversight or a lack of information at the time when an award was made, so that no deduction has been made for the availability of compensation elsewhere; but the provision could also be used in "blanket" ways, and inappropriate amounts could be deducted. Will the Minister therefore clarify how the retrospective power that is given under the amendment will be used in practice? Will the ways in which it is to be used be specified in the scheme, to be published shortly in its final form?

Mr. Maclean: No retrospection is intended. In the present scheme, no one is compensated twice: that is a normal rule of government, the law and insurance law in particular. We never intended that, under the new tariff scheme, someone could receive double compensation. All the amendment does is clarify the law and ensure that the same rule as operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is carried forward into the tariff scheme. In practice, it will operate in exactly the same way as at present. 
No blanket retrospection is applied—I do not know how that could apply. We should bear it in mind that, even moving as quickly as possible, it takes some time to process awards. The board and those operating the tariff scheme will want to receive full information on the means and situation of the victim and on any other income, expenses or money that he acquires. If they find that someone is receiving a full insurance pay-out, or, properly, that the criminal has been ordered to pay compensation to the victim and there is a compensation order against the criminal, so that the victim has received money from the criminal offender, they will reduce the award or not pay it. We are not, however, applying the provision retrospectively to take money back from people who have been properly paid. It merely continues the normal system.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 5

APPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 42, at end insert
("except so far as the provision relates to functions of persons mentioned in subsection (3)(d)(ii)")

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

Mr. Maclean: The first two amendments have the simple aim of ensuring that claims officers or staff appointed by the scheme manager can act as presenting officers at appeals in addition to their more normal job of determining claims. 
As to the third amendment, clause 5(9) was added to the Bill in Standing Committee to make it clear beyond doubt that the scheme may include provision for adjudicators to reduce awards when they consider that an appeal is frivolous or vexatious. That minor, technical amendment to delete the words "under this section" was necessary as appeals are not determined under the Bill, but are determined in accordance with the provisions of the scheme that is to be made under the powers conferred by clause 1. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Michael: I have one query for the Minister, which he may have clarified in his statement. He has been extremely helpful, for which I am grateful to him, in providing information about the intentions of amendments that he expected to come from the Lords. In a letter to me, he refers to the amendments to clause 5, saying that they would allow claims officers to act as presenting officers at appeals in addition to their main role in determining appeals. That leads to confusion, but it may simply be a misprint—their main role is in determining claims rather than appeals. If that is the case, I am happy to support the Minister in seeking to pass the amendment.

Mr. Maclean: It certainly sounds like a misprint. Claims officers determine claims, not appeals and they may then present the information to the appeals panel, which will determine the appeal.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 8

ANNUITIES

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 6, line 11, at end insert—
("(3) In this section "the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme" means—

(a) the scheme established by arrangements made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995; or
 (b) arrangements made by the Secretary of State for compensation for criminal injuries and in operation at any time before the commencement of that scheme.")

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Maclean: The amendment fulfils a promise made in the Standing Committee to extend the benefits of structured settlements so that they are available under the new tariff scheme to applicants under the current common law damages scheme or any other previous version of it, whose claims have not yet been settled. The necessary complementary amendment to the 1990 scheme to permit payment of compensation by the purchase of annuities will, as we also promised, be made administratively as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. This is an excellent amendment, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Michael: We support the objective of the amendment. The Minister says that people whose claims have not been dealt with will have the opportunity of structured settlements and the tax arrangements that are allowed for under the Bill. What will the cut-off date be? Will the ability to deal with claims by structured settlement date from the time when the Bill began its passage through the House and the declaration of the Government's intentions, from the date on which Royal Assent is signified or from a future date when the Government or Home Secretary implement that aspect of the Bill? I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important to be clear on those points. I hope that he will give the earliest possible date, so that the advantages of the new scheme will have the widest possible application. 
On the Order Paper today there is a written question tabled by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who sometimes asks questions that are regarded as convenient to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman asks whether structured settlements will be offered under the current criminal injuries compensation scheme. If any new information is to be provided to the hon. Gentleman, will the Minister share that information with us? 
I ask that question because it is quite common for members of the press to have information about written parliamentary answers long before hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it would be courteous to give the House as much information as possible in view of the fact that that question—coincidentally, I am sure—has been tabled on the day of this debate.

Mr. Maclean: I am not aware that I have any extra information to present to the House. I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) had coincidentally decided to ask a question, which might correspond with an urgent need that I had to present information. I shall be advised on it and I hope that I shall be able to confirm whether that is the case. We intend to have structured settlements. We think that they are a good idea. If any new information needs to be presented, I shall do so.

Mr. Michael: As I understand it, the Minister is answering that written question today, so if I speak slowly, any additional information might wend its way to him. If there is no additional information that is not already available to the House, I would be happy if, at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings, the Minister could confirm that.

Mr. Maclean: I have no extra information to provide, and nothing new to say on it. I can only conclude that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield was not fully aware of all the information that we had issued previously when he decided to ask for an update. The update will provide the same information. 
The earliest date of implementation will be Royal Assent. This part of the legislation cannot be retrospective because that would create tremendous anomalies. The question might arise whether, in some cases, the generous settlements that we are making under some aspects of the tariff award should not also be made retrospective. That would be very unfair. We expect the benefits of structured settlements to take effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

New clause

JURISDICTION OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Lords amendment: No. 7, after clause 9, to insert the following new clause—
.—(1) In the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, insert after section 11A—
"The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
11B.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, administrative functions exercisable by an administrator of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme ("Scheme functions") shall be taken to be administrative functions of a government department to which this Act applies.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the following are administrators of the Scheme—

(a) a claims officer appointed under section 3(4)(b) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995;
(b) a person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of that Act;
(c) the Scheme manager, as defined by section 1(4) of that Act, and any person assigned by him to exercise functions in relation to the Scheme.

(3) The principal officer in relation to any complaint made in respect of any action taken in respect of Scheme functions is—

(a) in the case of action taken by a claims officer, such person as may from time to time be designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph;
(b) in the case of action taken by a person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of the Act of 1995, the chairman appointed by the Secretary of State under section 5(3)(b) of that Act; or
(c) in the case of action taken by the Scheme manager or by any other person mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of this section, the Scheme manager.

(4) The conduct of an investigation under this Act in respect of any action taken in respect of Scheme functions shall not affect—

(a) any action so taken; or
(b) any power or duty of any person to take further action with respect to any matters subject to investigation."

(2) In Schedule 3 to the Act of 1967 (matters not subject to investigation), insert after paragraph 6B—
6C. Action taken by any person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, so far as that action is taken at the direction, or on the authority (whether express or implied), of any person acting in his capacity as an adjudicator appointed under section 5 of that Act to determine appeals.
(3) The amendments made by this section do not affect the following provisions of this Act—

(a) section 3(5)(b);
(b) section 3(7)(b);
(c) section 5(4)(b)."

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. 
The amendment fulfils undertakings given during earlier Commons stages that we would bring the administrative actions of the administrators of the scheme and those supporting the independent appeals system within the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman. Although the amendment appears to be long and complicated, it is a simple measure to ensure that the administrative aspects of the new system come within the ken and purview of the ombudsman.

4 pm

Mr. Michael: We certainly take pleasure in this amendment because the Opposition pressed the Government strongly to ensure that the administrative functions of the authority and the appeals panel would come within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. We strongly believe that that is necessary to ensure the proper administration and operation of the various elements of the Bill. 
I should be grateful if the Minister could provide a little clarification on the exclusions contained in the proposed new clause. As he said, the wording is complex but the principle is clear. However, it is possible within complex wording for things easily to slip out of sight. 
There are two elements on which I should like clarification. First, subsection (2) appears to exclude certain actions from investigation. How will that operate? Can we be absolutely certain that nothing will be excluded from the scrutiny of the ombudsman which this House would wish him properly to scrutinise? What will be the precise effect of the proposed new clause on the question of exclusion? 
Secondly, subsection (3) refers to three places in the Bill where, effectively, the actions of officials are defined as not being taken by the Secretary of State or on his behalf. The Minister will recall that we commented on that when the House debated the Bill. We were concerned that the exclusion of actions of officials from being acts taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State might mean that they were not properly scrutinised by the ombudsman. It appears that those actions are still omitted from the effects of the proposed new clause. Can the Minister reassure me on that point?
The Minister said that the new clause was a complicated addition to the Bill. We wish to ensure that something that we want scrutinised does not, through an oversight at this stage, drop off the agenda or be considered to be outside the capacity of the ombudsman. I should be grateful for as much clarification of that issue as the Minister can give me.

Mr. Maclean: We hope that there has been no oversight. The drafting is as accurate as parliamentary draftsmen can make it, but it has some clear aims. Through the drafting of the various subsections, we aim to apply the powers of the ombudsman, in full, to certain aspects of the scheme—the normal areas of government that the ombudsman can examine. What is not included is a decision on the merits of an award. Initially, that is a matter for the scheme officials to decide. It is not for the ombudsman to say, "I think Mrs. Smith should have got £20,000, not £15,000." Decisions on the merits are not for the ombudsman. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause outlines the exceptions. 
Similarly, as there is an appeals process built in, it is not for the ombudsman to become the appellate authority for people who are disgruntled with the quality of the decision on its merits. There is an appeal body for that. Nor is it the ombudsman's place to question ministerial policy, whether there should be a tariff scheme at all or whether it would be better done another way. We have therefore tried to apply in law the duties of the ombudsman to administrative action by the civil servants running the scheme.
We have attempted faithfully to make the powers that the ombudsman requires in this instance the same as in every other aspect of government. Administrative action would encompass things such as delays, failure to process the paperwork within a reasonable time or failure to process it at all, not implementing the scheme properly or failing to implement it as laid down. Those are administrative actions. We believe that we have got it right.

Mr. Michael: I should like a little more clarification. The Minister said that the merits of the case would perhaps lead a claims officer to decide whether an applicant should receive £20,000 rather than £10,000. He seeks to exclude that decision—the way in which a decision is made on the merits of the case—from investigation by the ombudsman. I understand what he is saying, but does he agree that the ways in which such a decision was reached—whether proper information was sought, whether clarification was sought if necessary, and whether the papers were examined properly—are administrative actions, as distinct from the judgment based on them, and would be a proper matter for the ombudsman? Clarification would be helpful.

Mr. Maclean: What the hon. Gentleman has described is, I suspect and hope, the exact legal position. A judgment on what a person should get is a quasi-judicial decision outwith the purview of the ombudsman. However, if in coming to that conclusion the official did not operate the scheme properly but failed to contact the applicant or check the forms and did not take a medical report as was perhaps required and then made a judgment based on that, it would seem prima facie to be a case of maladministration. That is the type of behaviour that ombudsmen are there to investigate. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Gentleman.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 6, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 38, and insert—
("Before making the Scheme, the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of it before Parliament.
(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make the Scheme unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House.
(2) Before making any alteration to the Tariff or to any provision of')

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 13. 
There is a manuscript amendment to Lords amendment No. 13, to leave out from `(4B)' to end of line 17 and insert
`Where the Secretary of State is required to lay a statement before Parliament under the provisions of subsection (4A) above, he shall not give effect to the altered provision unless the statement has been approved by a resolution of each House.'.

Mr. Maclean: These amendments are inter-related and it may be helpful if I deal with them in two sub-groups.

Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 13 change significantly the extent of Parliament's control over the scheme. The Bill, on introduction, required the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the tariff and any subsequent alterations to it before Parliament. It also required the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament statements of other 'key provisions' made by the scheme, namely those bearing on quantum. 
Under the amendments, however, the Secretary of State will now be required to lay a draft of the scheme in its entirety before Parliament. The scheme will not be able to start until that draft has been approved by both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. Thus specific parliamentary approval will be required for every aspect of the new arrangements before we can kick off.
Once the new scheme has started, any changes to it, however minor, will also be subject to parliamentary control. Changes to the tariff itself and to the key features of the scheme will require approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while changes to the more minor, more routine features will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We think that that strikes the right balance, requiring Parliament positively to approve changes to the more important aspects of the scheme, while leaving Parliament the choice as to whether changes to more minor matters should go through with or without a debate and with or without a vote. 
The amendments make it quite clear where ultimate control over the scheme rests. The Executive will of course still be able to propose changes, but it cannot give them effect without recourse to Parliament. 
Amendment Nos. 10 and 12 will have the effect of requiring more features of the scheme to be subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure should change be considered necessary or desirable once the scheme has started. Those features relate to the appeals provision of the scheme. 
Amendment No. 10 makes it clear that, before any changes can be made to a provision of the scheme which gives a right of appeal, or which specifies the circumstances in which an appeal is to be dealt with by an oral hearing, parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure will be necessary. Amendment No. 12 is minor and consequential. Effectively, therefore, any provision of the scheme which touches on eligibility for an appeal or the circumstances in which an oral hearing can be granted is caught.
More minor provisions relating in the main to more technical or administrative matters can still fall to be changed only by the negative resolution procedure. That will mean of course that if Parliament does not like even minor changes, it will still be able to pray against them and make its dissent known in that way. 
Perhaps it would be sensible at this stage to say a word or two about the Opposition amendment. As I hope that I have explained and will be clear from the Lords amendments to clause 10, the degree of parliamentary control has changed significantly. Before the whole scheme can come into force, Parliament must approve it by affirmative resolution. We are then suggesting that the key features of the scheme, if we wish to change them in future, can by changed only by affirmative resolution. Everything else, all the hundreds of minor and technical things, could still be changed only by negative resolution procedure. 
The Opposition amendment seeks to make every change in future subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I happen to think that that is just a bit over the top. It would not be a good use of Parliament's time to have to approve any change, however uncontentious, technical or minor, by the affirmative procedure.
I understand the thinking behind what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is trying to do. I hope that he will be satisfied, however, that, since we have put in the affirmative resolution procedure before the thing can start, and we are keeping its use for the scheme's key points, the negative procedure will be satisfactory to deal with the other parts of the scheme if we wish to change them in future.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to reassure us that he intends to use the negative resolution route only for uncontentious issues. The problem is that the Government have not defined what those uncontentious issues are and have not limited in their definition the areas of activity which could be covered under the negative resolution procedure. 
The Minister has rightly identified and, indeed, expanded on something that we support: those elements which have to go through the affirmative resolution procedure. In particular, we welcome the fact that the amendments bring the most important aspects of the appeals procedure within the key features of the scheme, and therefore require such changes in the appeals procedures to be undertaken through the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure. 
The Minister needs to explain, however, how the scheme will operate and how he intends to use the powers. The clause, as it originally stood, referring not to the scheme but to the tariff only, was entirely framed in terms of affirmative resolution. The negative resolution elements were introduced in another place.
The Minister referred to the issues that could be covered by the negative resolution procedure as "everything else". I think that he will accept that that is rather a portmanteau way of describing the matter. That is why we have tabled an amendment which seeks to bring the whole scheme under the affirmative resolution procedure, which of course is what we sought when the Bill first came before the House and before it went to another place. 
I shall give two examples of issues that would be contentious. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that they would not be dealt with other than through the affirmative resolution process. First, there is the appointment of the scheme manager and, secondly, there is the possible and highly contentious avenue for the Government to pursue of contractorisation of the operation of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We would like the Minister to reassure us that there is no way in which such issues will be pursued without them coming before the House and another place, which will ensure that the full support of Parliament is given to such a contentious decision. 
4.15 pm 
In that context, we have tabled our amendment. The matters that will have to be dealt with through the affirmative resolution procedure are specified to some

extent. The issues that are not specified would come under the negative resolution procedure. I have just referred to two matters that are not defined as coming under the affirmative resolution procedure and about which there is, therefore, doubt and concern. We are concerned that in those two matters, the Government may pursue the dogmatic approach adopted elsewhere. That would surely be wrong in relation to such an important aspect of public administration as compensation for victims of the most serious crimes. 
We understand that it is likely that the Minister or the Home Secretary will bring the scheme and the tariff, in their final form, before the House very soon after the Queen's Speech, when Parliament reassembles. In that case, it is extremely important that we should have some assurances from the Minister about the way in which the remaining issues will be dealt with. It is, of course, the case that under the affirmative resolution procedure, although the House is able to have a say before anything is implemented, it cannot amend legislation. The House can only accept or reject it.
In general, there have been improvements in the scheme. I commend the Minister on one point. He has made the scheme and amended schemes available so that proper debate has been able to take place and discussion has been possible with those who have specialist knowledge. That is welcome and is an improvement on the way in which other legislation has been dealt with. I commend the Minister on being much more open than has been the case on other occasions in terms of allowing proper debate. That may lead him into all sorts of difficulties with the Government, but the Opposition welcome his openness, as do those outside the House who have taken a detailed interest in the matter. It is only right that the Minister's openness in that regard should be acknowledged and praised in the House. 
There are still issues that have to be dealt with and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that there will continue to be improvements to them and consideration of them. Three obvious elements on which I hope he will give us reassurance are how pregnancy following rape is to be dealt with, how age and sex criteria are to be dealt with and whether multiple injuries will be dealt with in the way that the Minister has been urged to adopt.
During the passage of the Bill, a number of other issues were referred to as matters that would be dealt with under the provisions of the scheme. There is still the question of the qualifications of those who deal with appeals and their ability, as a team, to advise the Government and to be proactive in terms of changes that are needed in the scheme. 
The Minister knows that reassurances were given in debates in another place about the way in which care costs would be dealt with and he has received representations on how care costs can be linked to earning capacity. Again, there are fears that the Government's intentions will not be met. It is possible for a person to be providing care without there being any effect on that person's earning capacity. Although that person may have lost considerable time in which he or she could have been, in theory, earning, that is not the same as having one's earnings capacity affected. The earning capacity remains the same, but the amount of time available for earning has changed, which is a different matter. Linking that issue to earning capacity does not take account of the fact that many carers would not have earning capacity as such. The


carers might have been parents or spouses not in work and not intending to he in work when called upon to undertake care responsibilities. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that these issues will be dealt with in a constructive way and that they will be covered properly when the measure to approve the scheme and the tariff comes before the House early in the next Session. 
The treatment of psychiatric injury remains a matter of concern. The definition contained in the latest draft of the scheme still leaves aspects to be covered, and I know that the Minister has received representations on the issue of railway suicides. There is concern that the way in which that matter is dealt with may result in railway staff being excluded from bringing a psychiatric injury claim, even though they are specifically included in paragraph 9(d) of the scheme. 
The issues dealt with in relation to psychiatric injury include such aspects as loss of earnings. We have stated that damage could be done to those who are not able to claim during the 28 weeks after an injury, and particularly those who are unable to claim sick pay. Others might be disadvantaged due to the level of sick pay being considerably lower than what they would have obtained in employment. These issues must be dealt with by the provisions of the amendment through the affirmative resolution procedure. 
It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate that he is still willing to respond to the serious points which have been made in another place and outside Parliament. The scheme and the tariff that the Minister will bring forward for consideration by this House in the near future must deal fully with all of the issues which have been brought to his attention. The amendment which the Opposition have tabled seeks to make the whole of the scheme subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The devil is in the detail in criminal injury compensation and the detail is in the scheme and the tariff. 
The House must not allow its authority over important elements of detail in the scheme to be diminished. We are concerned that the amendment tabled by the Minister tabled this afternoon contains some indeterminate elements. I have given two examples of issues which could be dealt with by negative resolution, and which could be implemented in advance of the opinion of both Houses of Parliament being obtained.

Mr. Maclean: First, may I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his kindness and courtesy? I am the perfect epitome of the remark, "I am from the Government—I am here to help you", and I am well known for my compassionate and caring approach. It would be fair—and perhaps more honest—to thank my staff, and particularly my private office staff, who have constantly reminded me when another letter to a shadow spokesman is due and that it might be helpful to lay out the main features of the Bill. Without that reminder, the hon. Gentleman would not have been able to thank me for being so helpful. 
I should point out that what is to be done by affirmative resolution is clearly laid down by statute. We will operate the system in future in accordance with the law as set out in the Bill. Clause 10 states that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the tariff which he proposes and any alteration that he proposes to make to that tariff.

Clause 10(4) states that the tariff must be approved by a resolution of the House. Clause 10(2) states that measures to be laid before Parliament include any provision to deal with any additional amount,
the circumstances in which compensation may be payable with respect to a criminal injury of a kind for which no provision is made by the Tariff … the calculation of compensation in respect of multiple injuries… compensation payable in respect of children conceived as a result of rape … the circumstances in which an award may be withheld or compensation reduced any limit on compensation imposed by a provision made by virtue of section 2(7)(a).
All of those things are specified in the Bill, which we hope will shortly be an Act, and can be altered only be affirmative resolution. In addition, of course, we have the amendments that we are considering today. It is true to say that we are setting some key and important issues on one side. We have responded to concerns expressed in the House, in Committee and in the other place by making all the matters that most worried parliamentary colleagues subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. 
We think that we have got the draft scheme about right now. We found it helpful to publish the draft. Following comments from colleagues, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Law Society, experts in the other place and others, the draft has been altered. We are almost at the final stage, but we are still listening and willing to hear any representations that we have not yet heard on how we see the tariff scheme operating in practice. 
Following all the consultation and the tweaking that we have done, we think that we have got the tariff scheme about right and as good as it possibly can be. However, it is not set in stone. Medical knowledge improves and changes all the time. Legal knowledge changes. If in future years we become convinced that a change has to be made to a category, type or sub-division of injury or that multiple injuries could be dealt with better—although I am not convinced of that at present—it would be open to us to alter the tariff by affirmative resolution or, if it is a minor matter, by the negative procedure. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on those points.

Mr. Michael: The Minister spoke rapidly. A phrase which answered my two questions may have flashed by me, but I do not recall him dealing with the appointment of a scheme manager or the possibility of contractorisation, which I hope is unlikely, but must be a possibility with this Government. Could those matters be dealt with other than by affirmative resolution? Will he reassure us on those two points?

Mr. Maclean: I can only repeat the assurances that I gave in Committee that we had no proposals to do either of those things. I cannot forecast what will happen in the future, but I suspect that the workload of the organisation and the need to get the scheme bedded down mean that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not a prospect in the immediate future. 
We will be bound by the Act. The appointment of a scheme manager and contractorisation are not covered by clause 10. I do not believe that primary legislation would be necessary to make those changes. Changes to the administration of the scheme would be made by the negative resolution procedure. Neither the affirmative nor negative procedure might be necessary if the relevant sections of the Act have given the Secretary of State the


authority to make such changes. The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not covered by clause 10, which requires the affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House. The Minister has confirmed what we believe to be wrong with the state in which we have ended up, even though there is a requirement for affirmative resolution on some matters. As I understand the Minister's reply, the Government would be able to deal with matters such as the appointment of a scheme manager or even contractorisation, which would take criminal injury compensation decisions outside the scope of public servants, without having to return to the House under an affirmative resolution. Indeed, the Minister seemed to go further and suggested that the Government might not need the approval of the House at all. As the Minister gave the strongest assurances earlier in the passage of the Bill through the House that the Government had no intention of going down that road and as it is the clear intention of both Houses that affirmative resolution should be the avenue for the most important aspects of the Bill, it would be entirely wrong for the Government to take criminal injury compensation decisions outside the scope of public servants or appoint a scheme manager without coming back and putting specific resolutions to the House. 
We should be quite clear. The Government have no right to congratulate themselves on the Bill. The Home Secretary acted illegally in trying to introduce the new scheme without any parliamentary scrutiny. That was the Bill's gestation period—the Home Secretary's attempt to avoid the scrutiny of the House. The Government were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by affirmative resolution. When we last debated these issues only the tariff was to be subject to the approval of the House. 
4.30 pm
I welcome the fact that we have won from the Government the concession that the scheme itself is to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the scrutiny of the House. That still leaves the victims of violent crime without compensation for loss of income for 28 weeks after the injury. The Minister should recall that, with statutory sick pay at about £52.50 per week, it is

hardly an adequate recompense for those who are unable to work because of a serious criminal injury. Many people are not entitled to statutory sick pay, including the self-employed, those on a low income and those on short-term contracts. Some people might still be entitled to incapacity benefit, but that is no more generous than statutory sick pay. Others will get income support, which is even less than SSP. 
There is considerable variation. Taking all the factors together, however, it has been calculated that 12 million people—at least half of those in employment—do not receive full pay during the first 28 weeks of sickness and will, therefore, be at risk under the Bill. They will be worse off. 
This remains a scheme that cuts the amount of cash available for the victims of violent crime. The Government have admitted that £700 million is being cut from the cash available during the next five years. That amounts to a theft of £700 million by the Government from the victims who have been damaged most by the nastiest and most brutal of crimes. That is a 40 per cent. drop in expenditure for the Government and many victims will suffer as a result. The Government have made victims pay for their failure to stem the rise of violent crime. Instead of cutting violent crime, the Government have cut the help available to the victims. 
I perceive from the Minister's response that our amendment would not have succeeded in doing what we had hoped, which was to ensure that the Government could not undermine the operation of the scheme without an affirmative resolution from this House.
Despite the improvements that the legislation makes in the processes and the introduction of a tariff, money for the victims of violent crime will still be cut by £700 million in the next five years. I have some satisfaction, therefore, at our success in persuading the Government to introduce more satisfactory procedures and make the operation of the scheme subject to the parliamentary ombudsman, but I nevertheless regret that the Bill will be detrimental to the victims of crime and the victims of the most violent crimes in particular. That should be at the forefront of our minds as we reach this final stage in the Bill's passage through the Houses of Parliament.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 13 agreed to.

Statutory Instruments, &c

INSURANCE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman]

Question agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Vienna Document 1994 (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

REFORM OF THE RICE REGIME

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9532195, and 9379/95, relating to the reform of the rice regime; and supports the Government's efforts to ensure that the proposals when adopted will encourage the competitiveness of rice growing and milling in the European Union after the Uruguay Round, that high quality supplies will reach consumers at reasonable prices and that the regime will be capable of effective enforcement.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAMME 1995–97 AND PROMOTION OF EMPLOYMENT

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6827/95, the Commission's Medium Term Social Action Programme 1995–97; endorses the Government's view that European Community social policy should focus on helping to tackle unemployment, creating the conditions which encourage the creation of new jobs, and on improving the competitiveness of Community businesses, and should avoid further unnecessary legislation; takes note of European Community Document No. 5663/95, relating to the Employment Conclusions of the Essen European Council; and welcomes the fact that the Heads of Government of the European Community have recognised at successive European Councils the importance of tackling the high levels of structural unemployment in the Community.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

Select Committees

[Relevant document: The Fourth Special Report of the Employment Committee, Session 1994–95, on the proposed changes to Standing Order No. 130 (H. C. 826).]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended—
(1) with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
(a) by inserting the following item after item 10 in the Table in paragraph (2):
Public Service/Office of Public Service (but excluding the drafting of bills by the Parliamentary Counsel Office)/11/3
(b) in item 14 in the said Table, after the word 'Industry' in column 2, by inserting the words `(but excluding the Office of Science and Technology)';
(c) in item 16 in the said Table, by leaving out the words "and Civil Service" in column 1 and, in column 2, the words from "Treasury" in line 65 to "Board" in line 69; and
(d) in paragraph (3) by leaving out the words 'and Civil Service'; and
(2) with effect from Friday 1st March—
(a) by leaving out items 3 and 4 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following item:
Education and Employment/Department for Education and Employment/13/4"; and
(b) in paragraph (3) by inserting at the beginning the words "The Education and Employment Committee,".

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected amendment (c), which should be moved at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. Newton: In moving this motion, I initiate another exciting House of Commons occasion, although I hope not as exciting as the one in which we all took part yesterday.
The motion seeks to adjust the Select Committee structure of the House to match the changes in the machinery of government which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in July. I was anxious to get these matters resolved quickly because, as the House appreciates, I very much value the work of Select Committees and I wanted to make sure that we had a clear new structure in place before the start of the new Session.
What I propose follows the principle, which is now well established, of one Committee for each major Department, which the House last reaffirmed in June 1992 when it agreed to discontinue the Energy Committee and to set up a new Select Committee to monitor the Department of National Heritage and the Office of Science and Technology.
It might help the House if I digress briefly to make it clear that there has never been any intention on the part of the Government of doing away, as some feared, with the Science and Technology Committee. The Office of Science and Technology still exists in the same form as before the reorganisation; all that has happened to it is that it has migrated from one parent Department to another. The Science and Technology Committee will continue to oversee its activities at its new location.
I propose that the changes that I am putting forward to the Select Committee structure should be brought into effect in two stages. The first instalment, which is to take effect next week with the new Session, recognises the expanded role of the Office of Public Service under my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The OPS is now responsible not only for the civil service and the citizens charter but for competitiveness and the deregulation initiative. Those important areas of policy should now, we propose, be scrutinised by a new Public Service Committee, which is established by virtue of paragraph (1)(a) of the motion.
Other Committees, not least the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee, obviously have an interest in the competitiveness agenda, but I am sure that the well-tried machinery of the Liaison Committee, so ably presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), will prevent any overlapping of Committee activity. I should emphasise that the role of the Deregulation Committee, which we established under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, in scrutinising individual deregulation orders as they come forward is not affected by this proposal.
As a consequence of that change, paragraph (1)(c) of the motion renames the Treasury and Civil Service Committee more simply and precisely as the Treasury Committee ant amends its remit so as to remove the references to the responsibilities taken over by the new Public Service Committee. Under paragraph (1)(d), the Treasury Committee will keep the power to appoint a Sub-Committee, but clearly any such Sub-Committee could no longer deal with civil service issues.
Paragraph (1)(b) makes it clear that the remit of the Trade and Industry Committee does not include the Office of Science and Technology, which, as I have said, will continue to be monitored by the Science and Technology Committee.
The second instalment of the changes I propose is to come into operation on 1 March 1996. We propose in paragraph (2)(a) to take account of the disappearance of a separate Employment Department by establishing a new Committee with 13 members, to monitor the full range of functions of the new Department for Education and Employment, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister created to reduce the divisions between academic and vocational education and to strengthen further the links between employers and the educational world of schools, colleges and universities.
Under paragraph (2)(b) of the motion, the new Education and Employment Committee will have the power to appoint a Sub-Committee if it so wishes. The creation of that new Committee, in line with what I must describe as the House' settled policy of matching Committees to Departments, necessarily means that the existing separate Committees on education and on employment need to be wound up, but I propose that that should not happen for nearly four months. The intention is to allow the existing Committees a reasonable period in which to complete the work that they have already started, which I hope they will be able to do. The Employment Committee has expressed concern about the prospects for the unfinished inquiries that it has under way at the moment. The proposal that the Committee should continue until 1 March 1996 seeks to respond to that concern.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Newton: I will give way, but I had understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to make a speech. If an intervention can substitute for a speech, I would wish to co-operate with him.

Mr. Janner: That is not a basis on which I would wish to ask the Minister any question that I have.

Mr. Newton: I thought that my hopes might have been raised too high.

Mr. Janner: Yes, by at least half an hour.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his usual helpfulness and courtesy. I appreciate the fact that he and his colleagues would have liked the period to be even longer, but I hope—although with little expectation in the light of our exchange, which was intended to be friendly—that they will regard this proposal as a reasonable compromise.
This motion deals with a number of issues, but I think that the only contentious point is over employment. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the changes in departmental responsibilities, some concern was expressed that the new arrangements might make it more difficult for the House to deal with employment issues. On Select Committee scrutiny, I hope that the proposals that I have brought before the House today, relating to the four-month period, the size of the Committee and its power to appoint a Sub-Committee, will have gone some way towards allaying those anxieties. As I said, the present Employment Committee will have nearly four months in which to complete the inquiries that it has in hand.
All in all, the motion represents a sensible and balanced solution to the problems that we face in relation to existing Committees, while sticking to what is widely supported: the settled policy of matching Select Committees to Departments.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am sorry to dash the hopes of the Leader of the House, but it is the view of nine of the 11 members of the Select Committee on Employment that the so-called "compromise" offered by the Government will not enable the Committee to do its work within the time set; nor will it allow the House to monitor properly the work that was previously within the ambit of the Department of Employment.
My amendment (c) is supported by the hon. Members for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson). It will not have escaped the attention of the Leader of the House that it has all-party support.
I am sorry that the Government have seen fit to try to make the Employment Committee vanish at the last breath of this Session. They have no doubt done so in the expectant hope that the payroll vote will be rolled out if necessary in order to put forward a proposition that is


neither in the interests of Parliament nor in accordance with good sense, and does not satisfy the House that the employment work will be done.
The Leader of the House should be careful when I speak because, on the last occasion, in line with my work as a magician, I suggested to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) that the sooner he joined the Labour party and left the Conservative party, the better. I said that we would welcome him at any moment. To my absolute delight, a week later he crossed the Floor of the House. When that happens in response to one of my speeches, the Leader of the House might at least bend slightly in our direction and try to enable us to complete the work as he has suggested.
First, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will follow the views expressed in the fourth special report, which I shall read to him as unfortunately he did not see fit to mention it. If that is not possible, he should at least ensure that we are not forced to give up our work until the report commissioned by the Central Statistical Office to study options for the monthly publication of International Labour Office unemployment figures is before the House.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the proposed changes to Standing Order No. 30, the fourth special report of the Employment Committee, which was agreed by nine of the 11 members. Paragraph 3 reads as follows:
We believe that the merging of the Education and Employment Committees will seriously diminish the ability of the House to monitor employment issues. We adduce the following reasons.
A committee which is responsible for both the employment and education briefs will not have the time to consider in detail the issues which they raise.
Both Committees have built up a background of knowledge and expertise in their respective areas which will be lost if they are merged into one committee"—
the report says "of only 11 members", but we now all know that it is to be of only 13 members, whereas the combined strength of the two Committees would have been 22 members.
I have consulted members of the Education Committee and found that they share the unhappiness and sense of regret at the Government's position which is felt by the vast majority of members of the Employment Committee.
The Leader of the House referred to a clear structure. I refer him to the original report that led to the setting up of Select Committees, which had in mind flexibility so that the work of the House could be done properly. It is one of the joys of our constitution, both written and unwritten, that there should be flexibility. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen it from the Government on this issue.
I remind the House that the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which introduced the new Select Committee system in 1978–79, pressed firmly for a more systematic means of scrutinising the public service, which is what we are about. It concluded that
the committee structure should in future be based primarily on the subject areas within the responsibility of individual government departments, or groups of departments.
I stress the word "primarily". None of us would dispute the fact that that is the normal system, but we have fled from normality with the Government's abnormal abolition of the Department of Employment and the spreading of its

work, not between two Departments, which is the usual—[Interruption.] I was hoping that a tiny corner of the mind of the Leader of the House might even be open to argument.

Mr. Newton: I apologise for the discourtesy of my feeling the need to have a word with one of my Front-Bench colleagues.
I hope that I have shown, over quite a long period, that I always try to look constructively at points that are made. However, I must say at this stage that I have already done so, to the degree that this is a substantially different proposal from the one that I first floated in several respects, on which I touched in my speech.

Mr. Janner: I accept that, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous even when he is wrong.
I shall continue reading the very important paragraph from the report, which states:
We"—
the Select Committee on Procedure—
therefore accept that this principle must be tempered by some element of flexibility in the boundaries between committees and by adequate provision for cooperation between them.
I wonder whether the Leader of the House realises what has happened to the work that was with the Department of Employment. The training and enterprise councils have gone into the Department for Education, and we are busy, as a Committee, working on a report on the TECs, on which we have spent a great deal of time.
Into the Treasury, of all places, has gone the work of the Central Statistical Office, which includes the setting up of a task force led by an external consultant, a Mr. David Steel—no relation to anyone in the House, I understand—which is due to produce its report by the end of January 1996. I shall return to that subject.
So we have the TECs with the Department for Education; we have the CSO with the Treasury. Strangely enough, workfare, to which I shall return—this is a subject which is vastly important to the Committee and on which we have done a huge amount of work—is with the Department of Employment. Then we have all the issues concerning wages and trade unions, which have gone to the Department of Trade and Industry. [Interruption.] I am so sorry to interrupt—

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): Get on with it.

Mr. Janner: Yes; I will get on with it. I will tell hon. Members exactly what I think. I think that this is a deliberate move by the Government, as part of their policy to remove the Department of Employment and the spotlight on unemployment and on the work that is being done on workfare. They are transferring different aspects of work, one by one, into a long series of Departments, so as to spread them out.
Health and safety go to one place and TECs go to another; all the different aspects of our work have been spread about. It is all part of a confidence trick by the Government, in an attempt to remove the attention of the public from the reality of the existing and unacceptable unemployment.
I will get on with it by congratulating the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, whose work on workfare has been prodigious and without whom our Committee would not have undertaken it. That work has led us not only to interview witnesses in this country but to interview them in the United States. The Government have said that they intend to rely on the experience of the United States when proposing ideas about workfare.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norfolk, North because it is as a result of his persistence that at least someone is listening. I hope that we shall hear from him, because the main reason why, if the Committee is to go, it should not go until we know what is happening, is that otherwise it will not be possible to complete the type of report on workfare that the House deserves.
I will get on with it by saying to the right hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) that he should be more temperate in his language when he is trying to get rid of a Committee whose members have worked happily and in great harmony together for a long time, who have done a superb job in a series of investigations and reports and who want to complete their work properly in a way that is in accordance with the traditions of the House.
We are considering three reports. One report is about TECs. It is possible for us to complete that. It will not be as full as we would want, but it can be done. Secondly, we have a report about employment statistics. That, standing on its own, is of great importance, whatever view—jaundiced or affectionate—anyone may take of the disgraceful way in which the Government publish their employment statistics. I am not surprised that the Government do not want the report, but the Committee wants it. It wants it in its own right and also because it forms the basis of the report that we shall produce on workfare.
One right hon. Gentleman has said, "Well, what does it matter? You can bring your report out on workfare even if you do not know the statistics." That is exactly the sort of rubbish which I will get on with, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unlikely to take any interest in a report on workfare based on statistics when other statistics are likely to appear at any minute at the Government's own request.
The question that I was going to ask the Leader of the House, which he stifled at its birth but which he may wish to revive when he replies, is simply as follows. Will he please guarantee that the Committee will have the report of Mr. David Steel before it for a reasonable time before it must pack in, before the Government get rid of it and before the Government get on with their task of getting rid of unemployment by putting it into the Education Select Committee and into a Sub-Committee? Everyone knows that a parliamentary Sub-Committee is a cul-de-sac into which ideas are lured, there to be quietly strangled to death.
We do not want a Sub-Committee; we want the Employment Select Committee to be allowed to continue its work until the end of the current Session.

Sir Terence Higgins: The end of the Session is tomorrow, as I understand it.

Mr. Janner: The end of the Session is tomorrow, which is precisely why the debate is tonight—so that there will not be enough hon. Members in the House to vote on it, so that the payroll vote may steamroller any effort that

we make. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I thank him so much for drawing attention to my error.
We want the Committee to continue its work until the end of the Parliament. If it cannot be to the end of the Parliament, at least let it be until such time as we can bring out our report, not only on the statistics but on the effect that that has on the workfare report.
Every member of the Committee—with the possible exception of two Conservative Members, neither of whom is present—agrees that the level of unemployment, even though, happily, it is lower than it was, is unacceptable. Members of the Committee also agree that the idea that people should be paid for not working when they wish to work, and that they should not pay taxes when they would much prefer to be working and earning and paying taxes, when they are doing nothing with their time but rotting in unemployment—which is a hateful disgrace in modern society—is unacceptable.
We are considering ways in which that can be made better. We cannot guarantee that we shall all agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, but at least let us consider the ideas properly. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is being passed a billet-doux.
If the Leader of the House is determined to limit his flexibility, in what he chooses to call a compromise, to 1 March 1996, will he at least give us the absolute guarantee that the Committee will have that report before it? I would respectfully suggest that he should look again and consider whether the rush is unseemly.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that there are no real precedents for the change. With respect, I disagree. He referred to the Science and Technology Select Committee, which he described as in migration from one Department to another. I know that we are at the time of autumn mists and that birds migrate, but that Committee has not been migrated.
The Science and Technology Committee considers the work of the Office of Science and Technology. Until July, it came under the Cabinet Office, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was the responsible Minister. Now it comes under the Department of Trade and Industry. The Government do not intend to abolish the Science and Technology Committee, which, if each Committee is meant to monitor a Department, they should; they will keep it going. It is not subsumed by the Trade and Industry Select Committee, as it would be if there were logic in the right hon. Gentleman's intention to get rid of the Employment Select Committee in that way.
Nor would this be the first time that there had been a delay in removing a Committee. On one occasion, changes to the Standing Orders of the House were delayed after a change in the departmental structure of government. The Department of Health and Social Services was split in summer 1988 and the Select Committee on Social Services was not split into two separate Committees until October 1990. It is a matter of the extent to which the Government permit the work of the House, and especially the work of the Departments and the work done by the Departments, to be carried out properly.
The principle that I mentioned, of "one Department, one Committee", has already been tempered by flexibility, but it must be tempered by more flexibility. It would make much more sense to allow the Select Committee on


Education to continue its work until the end of the Parliament. The Government should allow the Select Committee on Employment to continue its work until the end of the Parliament, when the Committee and some of its members would, regrettably, depart. But until then, they could do the job required of them by Parliament through the sensible monitoring system that exists.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North will speak for himself. We on the Committee are determined to try, within the time limits that we are given by the House, to carry out our work in a way that brings credit to the House. We cannot properly monitor the work of the Department of Employment, as it was, if we are to have only four months to do so and no power to start any new reports. We shall have to wind up what we are doing and continue our work as a Select Committee—but we are at the tail end of the job.
It is the submission of all but two members of the Employment Select Committee, which I am privileged to chair, that the new arrangements are a mistake. That mistake will prevent the Committee from doing its job properly and has occurred owing to the inflexible approach adopted. The mistake could be avoided very simply—Parliament cannot continue much longer. I ask the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, to think again and see whether flexibility can be extended in a way that does credit to the House.

Mr. Iain Mills: I agree with my colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who chairs the Committee: we need more time. I shall not speak for long as we have only a short time for the debate.
We have achieved inward investment from Toyota, Honda and others. The Committee has not achieved that on its own, but it has used its influence to ensure that those companies have invested here. It is a great shame that the Committee is to be abolished. The Select Committee on Education cannot replicate the work of the Select Committee on Employment. I feel passionately that the Select Committee on Education cannot replicate the job creation aspects of the Employment Select Committee.
All I ask is that we should have a few more months—there is nothing else that we can ask for. We cannot ask for the Employment Select Committee to be recreated, but our achievements should be placed on record. I hope that Hansard will tonight record the inward investment achievements and the help and encouragement that the Employment Select Committee has given to various firms to locate in this country. We should have a little longer to conclude our arrangements.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my other colleagues who are members of the Committee. Clearly, we are not likely to succeed in changing the view of the Leader of the House tonight to the extent that he will allow us to continue to the end of the Parliament. But if he expects us to lie down, roll over and die, he has made a grave mistake.
I am sorry that the debate had to take place at the fag end of the parliamentary Session, which has meant that not many hon. Members are here to make the comments that they would want to make on the way in which the Government have sought to forget about employment by burying it within the Department for Education and Employment. The Government have attempted to suggest that their responsibility for getting people into work is based solely on training. A quick résumé of the Government's work on training and their success in getting people into employment would soon dispel any belief that the Government have made a serious attempt to use training as a basis on which to reduce unemployment. I am sure that the Leader of the House could not name a successful Government scheme today to convince members of the Employment Select Committee, whether Government or Opposition Members, that the Government's policy has worked.
Our investigation of the various training initiatives introduced by the Government under the guise of getting people back to work reveals an abysmal success rate. The work that we are currently undertaking with the training and enterprise councils has demonstrated how the TEC system has failed. The previous Secretary of State for Employment travelled to Boston, studied the private industry councils and thought that they were a good way of directly involving business people. He brought the policy back to this country; it was introduced in England and Wales as TEC and in Scotland as local enterprise companies. The policy was supposed to be the driving force to tackle unemployment, but the TECs' and LECs' record on getting people back to work is abysmal.
During our present inquiry into the work of TECs, we recently interviewed TEC personnel. Some TECs no longer exist because of the way in which they were run. They could not run themselves properly, but they were supposed to reduce the levels of long-term unemployed. The Government's record on training is abysmal. The Leader of the House must work harder if he wants to convince the Select Committee on Employment that, by abolishing the Department of Employment and placing the emphasis on training, the Government can tackle the present unemployment problem.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West said, the Leader of the House will also have to consider the fact that, in the past, when a Department has disappeared, the Committee monitoring it has not necessarily disappeared. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the Select Committee on Science and Technology and I should be interested to hear what the Leader of the House has to say in response to his comments.
It beggars belief that the Leader of the House and the Government thought that the Select Committee on Employment would simply lie down and die, and become a Sub-Committee of the newly formed Committee. Such a proposal does not tackle the serious problem of unemployment. People who are at present unemployed want to make a contribution. They currently believe that they cannot make a contribution, either on their own behalf or on behalf of their families. They are regularly attacked by Conservative Members as people who do not want to work or make a contribution, but want to live off the state.
The Government have decided that the best way to end unemployment is to abolish the Department that deals with it, thereby confusing people and trying to convince


them that unemployment is no longer the Government's responsibility. That method will not work; it certainly will not work with us this afternoon. It is unlikely that we shall be able to change the mind of the Leader of the House, but we shall certainly make an effort to do so. We certainly shall not let the debate finish this afternoon until we have heard one or two better reasons.
I accept what the Leader of the House has said about the compromises that he believes himself to have made, although I shall not comment on whether they have been made through the usual channels or on whether they are acceptable. However, we require more persuasive, reasonable and sensible arguments from the right hon. Gentleman if we are to accept the need to do away with a Select Committee that has sole responsibility for considering employment and ensuring that the Government's attention is focused on it.

Sir Peter Emery: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for missing his opening remarks. I was at a meeting.
I rise to speak only because, having heard two speeches, I well understand the disappointment of members of a Select Committee—and its Chairman, who has done his best to monitor the action of the Department involved—when the Department ceases to exist. I do not wish to become involved in an argument about whether there should be a Department of Employment or a Department for Education and Employment, although that strikes me as being part of the purpose of the debate; I heard what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) had to say about such matters as training, but it is clear to me that training will have to be dealt with by the new Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) mentioned investment, which will have to be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry.
As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I have fought long and hard for each Department to retain its Select Committee, and for the Committees to monitor the work of their Departments. I have proved that over the years with the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the Select Committee on Northern Ireland—we had to fight for a long time to obtain that. When the Department of Health and Social Security was split into two Departments, I ensured that separate Committees were set up to monitor the two aspects of its work.
If I use that argument, however, I cannot continue to argue that there should be a Select Committee when there is no Minister or Department for it to monitor. I am slightly surprised that the Department of Employment has not been cut off completely and all its work transferred, but I am pleased that the Government have been flexible enough to try to ensure that the Employment Committee's work will not be wasted. A date has been given for the completion of that work. It is true that no new work will be started, but the new work must be done by a Committee that will monitor a Minister. The idea of starting new work when there is no Minister to monitor strikes me as very strange, even if it involves examining only what has happened in the past. The only person who can respond to the Committee's report—and the reports that are published after, or up to, the end of March—will be the new Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The idea that we can retain a Committee that is monitoring a Minister who does not exist is very odd.

Mr. Janner: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his many courtesies over the years, and not least for what he has said today. Surely he accepts, however, that the Minister who responds to the report will be the Minister in charge of the Department that is now dealing with the matter concerned. If the report is on employment statistics, for instance, it will be dealt with by the Treasury; if it is on training and enterprise councils or workfare, it will be dealt with by the Department for Education and Employment. There may not be a Minister representing a Department that has been abolished, but Ministers will reply to reports on matters that are within the ambit of their responsibilities.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. and learned Gentleman may or may not be correct. I assume that all the reports from the existing Select Committee on Employment will be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at first, although it is for her to decide whether to refer them elsewhere.
In any event, I cannot—on behalf of the Procedure Committee—say that it is in the interests of the House to set the precedent that Select Committees can continue to monitor when there is no one to monitor. I must support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House: I believe that he is taking the right step, and is being generous in setting the end of March as the time by which members of the Committee can complete their work.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Let me make three brief points. I listened carefully to the eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the Chairman of the Employment Select Committee; it was what we have come to expect of such a distinguished parliamentarian. I would hate him to think that the House does not appreciate the work that the Committee has done so far—work which has been informative and of high quality, and which has held the Department firmly to account. The House is in the Committee's debt, and I should not like any member of the Committee to think otherwise. It provides an example of what can be done by a Select Committee.
Having said that, however, I think that what is being done is logical. My party has always perceived the elegant synergy between the Department for Education and training and employment, and I was quite happy when the Government made their decision earlier this year. It has left some rough edges, of course, and it will take some time for the House to get used to the idea of the new demarcation and allocation of responsibilities—some of which were not handled very deftly; I would have put some of the bits and pieces in different Departments. It will also take us some time to get out of the habit of referring directly to the Department of Employment.
Although I support the motion, I feel that the eloquent pleas made by Committee members for time to enable them to complete their reports are entirely proper. I hope that the House will do nothing to disturb that work, enabling it to be completed in good time.
Finally, I should like an assurance from the Leader of the House about the position of minority parties in Select Committees. I do not believe that there is a place for such parties on either the Employment Committee or the


Education Committee at present. I should hate to think that, if we adopted the habit of folding Sub-Committees into departmental Committees, that would prejudice the precious few places that minority parties currently have.
There is an argument—although this is not the time to advance it—for providing a place on all departmental Committees for parties such as mine, and for nationalist parties such as the Ulster Unionist party in its various complexions. We often feel that we are under-represented. I know that it is preferable to have small executive Committees to do the work, and by and large they do it very well, but I fear that setting up Committees with Sub-Committees may freeze out the possibility of securing an appropriate number of places for minority parties.
Provided that the Leader of the House can reassure me that he will be diligent in protecting the rights and interests of minority parties—and given the thanks that are due to the Committee for the work that it has done to date—I believe that the motion should be supported.

Sir Ralph Howell: I am glad that the Government have gone as far as they have in letting the Select Committee on Employment continue until the end of February, but I hope that they will listen to this debate and go further, because they are making a serious mistake. Unemployment is the biggest problem that confronts the advanced world and merely trying to hide it in another Department will not solve the problem. That will not help the Government. I ask them to take this matter seriously.
To try to mix education and unemployment in a Committee will not work as the people who are interested in education and the people who are likely to be interested in unemployment are as different as chalk and cheese. To try to put them into one Committee is not acceptable and that will prove to be so.
I congratulate the Government on doing away with the Department of Employment. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment for his kind remarks about myself and the right to work/workfare inquiry that I initiated. He is wrong in worrying too much about the old Department of Employment. I found that it was inward looking and, over many years, nothing but obstructive, so I have no problem with its disappearance.
It seems obvious, however, that in the Department for Education and Employment, there must be two separate Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is perfectly capable of looking after those two sectors, but she could very well report to two separate Select Committees. I hope that serious consideration will be given to that matter.
To confine those of us on the Select Committee on Employment to a shorter period will not enable us to get to the bottom of what we need to do.

Mr. David Nicholson: Whether the old Department for Education and the old Department of Employment will satisfactorily gel together remains to be seen, but my hon. Friend is right in saying, as paragraph 3 of the Employment Select Committee special report points out, that there is considerable doubt that the Select Committee on Education and the Select Committee on Employment will gel together, especially in the last year

of a Parliament. If that were being done at the beginning of a Parliament, I would understand it, but to do it at the fag end of a Parliament, when it has months to run, is eccentric.

Sir Ralph Howell: I am grateful for that intervention. It reminds me of Question Time today. It is crazy to have education questions and employment questions all muddled up on the Order Paper. They should be in two separate halves, so that we can examine those issues properly and sensibly.
I am especially concerned in relation to the statistical evidence and the report that we are compiling. We need that report as soon as possible, but I doubt that we shall get it before the end of January. We shall then require a lot of time to consider it and the Government will need to consider the statistics much more closely than they have in the past. Again, the Government are doing themselves no service in trying to fob off the unemployment problem as if, because it is falling a little, all is well. All is not well.
A total of 2.25 million people are doing nothing. Even on Government figures, that is costing £11.4 billion, which is a total waste as society gets nothing in return. Those figures, however, do not stand up to examination. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in October 1992, when she was Secretary of State for Employment only, that the cost of an unemployed person was £9,000 a year. In today's terms, the cost must be at least £10,000 a year. With 2.3 million people unemployed, that works out at £23 billion, so it is no good the Treasury telling us that unemployment is costing only £11.4 billion.
In 1979, 612,000 people were claiming invalidity benefit; that has risen to the huge figure of 1.8 million—1.25 million more people. If one adds the number claiming invalidity benefit in 1979 to the number claiming unemployment benefit at that time, it comes to 1.7 million; the figure now is 4.2 million. We need to know how well we are doing and to get to the bottom of the matter. The Government are intent on cutting public expenditure. That is the only sector where public expenditure could be cut, because there is that enormous figure of waste. I do not know whether the Government figure of only £11.4 billion is right or whether the correct figure is £23 billion or £27 billion, as Labour said in 1992, but I am confident that that is a big sector of waste and one that must be dealt with.
It will be impossible to persuade the mixed Committee, sub-committees or whatever one wishes to introduce, to be as effective as one Committee looking after one subject. This is an important subject. It will remain so and it is no good the Government trying to sweep it under the carpet.

Sir Terence Higgins: The first part of the motions relates to the creation of the Public Service Committee and the abolition, effectively, of the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service. I am second to none in believing that the changes that we undertook nearly 15 years ago in the Select Committee system have been the biggest improvement in increasing ministerial accountability to the House, probably even this century. This matter is therefore of great importance and it is right that we should debate it this afternoon. Having said that,


I believe that the strength of those reforms lay in the fact that the Select Committee system became departmentally related. If one were to divert from that, the system would be greatly weakened.
Over the years—and I have had a lot to do with this matter in the intervening period—there has been considerable concern when the departmental structure has changed and when the Select Committees have had to be adjusted to meet that, but I have no doubt that that has been essential and, generally speaking, it has been done almost immediately or as quickly as possible. There was only one exception—and that was not a happy one—involving the Select Committee on Social Security,
On the proposed structure, we can take a lesson from the experience of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which has a Sub-Committee that deals largely with civil service issues. I have been well aware of the passion—I think that that is a fair description—felt by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) and others on that point, and, as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, I have listened as carefully as possible to the various points that have been put to me.
The initial view was that the change should happen immediately and that that should be that, but I was influenced by the arguments advanced, as was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and two important changes have been made, one of which gives the new Select Committee on Education and Employment the power to set up a formal Sub-Committee, which is a considerable power. Only the Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Treasury and Civil Service Select Committees have such a power, so that is an innovation.
Over my 12 years' experience on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the Sub-Committee dealing with civil service matters was not particularly subsidiary. It is true that at the end of the day, the main Committee stamps the decisions that have been taken, but it has proved an effective method of working. The work carried out by that Sub-Committee has been of great importance. It has produced major changes in proposals for the civil service and so on. There is no reason why that should not be the case for the new Committee.
There is a problem about manning the Sub-Committee. That is why the Leader of the House's proposal to increase the membership of the Committee is so important. No doubt, to some extent there will be some continuity of membership with the two previous Committees.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has suggested that the change should not be carried out immediately, as is the case with the Public Service Committee, but that it should be carried out by March next year. I hope that that enables the Committee to complete its work, particularly the proposals on workfare, which it might be true to say have been the life work of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North. He has done a tremendous job and is now in sight of a major step forward. It may be that the Committee's report will have considerable influence. I am anxious that that should be completed.
In recent weeks, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have sat through 39 sittings of the Nolan committee, so we are seriously biased about this matter. We might feel that the Employment Committee could fit

in some extra sittings. I would have thought that 39 sittings between now and the end of February would be roughly equivalent to what we did. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North could probably fit that in.
I hope that this is a reasonable compromise and that it will enable the Committee to complete its work. Members of the new Committee will adopt a new guise, but some aspects of the Committee's work are certainly linked. For example, training and education have a close relationship.
If we were to perpetuate the existence of the Employment Committee, as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West has suggested, there would be a split into various separate Departments—Education and Employment, Environment, Treasury and Trade and Industry. It would be a mess. Nobody would know which Secretary of State would be called before the Committee next. If the Committee is clearly the Education and Employment Committee, that is the Secretary of State whom the Committee is responsible for monitoring. If we are not to fragment the entire Committee system, that is the only sensible way forward. I hope that, on reflection, hon. Members and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will go along with it.
I pay sincere tribute to the substantial and important work carried out over a considerable time by the Select Committee on Employment. Sad though it is, I hope that, on balance, this is the right way forward.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: This is an important debate and, as has been said by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, it is more than just a technical adjustment of our Standing Orders. It is an opportunity to praise the work of hon. Members who serve on Select Committees. Those Committees are sometimes the unsung part of Parliament. They are not usually on television and are not part of the party political battle or the cockpit of policy debate in the Chamber. Nevertheless, the Committees form a vital part of the work of the House.
The tragedy is that, until the implementation of the improvements brought about by the changes for the next Session, the House has never really taken seriously or devoted enough time to the work and the reports of the Committees. It is good that, following the resolutions passed last week as a result of the Jopling proposals, there will be an opportunity in the next Session to debate some of the Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House on at least three Wednesday mornings. The sooner my colleagues from both sides of the House who sit on the Employment Select Committee proceed with the three important reports on which they are working, the sooner they will be available to the Liaison Committee for selection for debate on the Floor of the House. That is important.
This is a sensible compromise. I accept the thrust of the Leader of the House's remarks. I share the disquiet of the Chairman of the Employment Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), because we are mindful of the fact that employment matters do not disappear into a black hole. That point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the Opposition are particularly mindful of it. The activities of the Department are being split up and it is not always easy to target what the Government


are doing to solve unemployment. Are we intent on eradicating mass unemployment? That is a serious issue which needs to be faced. It will come home to haunt the Government in due course.
The Employment Committee has about three and a half months left to complete its work. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), mentioned the work of the Nolan committee. I am not sure whether the Employment Committee has the power to sit in a recess, but the Christmas recess will fall within those three and a half months. The Committee needs an opportunity to complete its work on the reports on training and enterprise councils, workfare and employment statistics. That work must be finished by 1 March, not the end of March as was mentioned by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
Fifteen or 16 years ago we voted on setting up the departmental Select Committees. I do not know how many hon. Members voted against setting up those Committees, but I was one of them. As I have said before, I did that because I did not believe that they would produce reports that were good enough and I did not believe that they would have sufficient teeth. On balance, experience has proved me wrong. They have provided hon. Members with a good oversight of the work of Departments which was not available to them before. The Committees are able to target a Department. If I had my way—some of my hon. Friends agree with me—I would target much more closely the work of a Department by raising other matters that fall well outside this debate.
The Committees deal with the structure of government and it is important that the House should take cognisance of the machinery of government. It is a little like the Opposition Front Bench. Over the past few years the Opposition have experimented by appointing shadow spokesmen on certain issues without a Minister for them to shadow. On balance, that is not a satisfactory arrangement for our Front Bench. With a change of Government we would form the machinery of government. The departmental Select Committees should reflect the work of the Departments. That is the only sensible way to operate.
It is important to set up a Committee to shadow the work of the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues. It is clear that an empire is being built in Whitehall and that it will have to be accountable to the House. Tempers might become a little short because there were many questions that the Deputy Prime Minister was unable to answer in the House. When he is before a Select Committee he will not be able to dodge them in the same way as he has in recent weeks. It is important that that Committee should begin its work early in the new Session.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a plea on behalf of the minor parties. He and I are in favour of strict proportionality in many matters. If there were to be a representative from a minor party on every Select Committee, the minor parties would be over-represented and I could not approve of that. The hon. Gentleman knows how the calculation is carried out. In the totality of Select Committee places, the minor parties receive their representation according to the proportions of the House. I understand that that means that many major Select Committees do not have minor party input and I understand the frustration that that causes.
I want to raise a not unimportant matter. Last week we passed new Standing Orders relating to the Jopling changes. Yesterday we passed new Standing Orders relating to the Nolan changes. Today, we are passing new Standing Orders relating to what I call the reshuffle changes. Therefore, I expect a very early reprint of Standing Orders, by the start of the new Session, because we already have at least two supplements, not counting the changes that I have just listed. There is no question that HMSO does wonders; the way that it produces our parliamentary papers is an incredible operation. The Standing Orders should be brought up to date before the beginning of the new Session.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have worked hard on the Employment Select Committee. I wish them well in the work that they still have to do in finishing the three vital reports. However, the sooner the reports are available, the sooner we can put pressure on the Liaison Committee to look at them in a bid for proper debate on the Floor of the House. It is certainly a neglected area of our constitution.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. If I was mildly irritated by anything, it was one or two remarks suggesting that I was trying to smuggle something through in some curious way. As I said in my speech, there has been widespread pressure to sort out the Select Committees for the new Departments and the others that I am proposing before the start of the next Session, so if I had not taken this initiative people would have asked why I was dragging my feet and not getting on with the job.
I feel bound to observe—I hope in a friendly fashion—that the notion that this early hour on a Tuesday in early November, widely advertised in a business statement two weeks ago as a day on which Parliament would be sitting to do business, is somehow an unreasonable time to debate a matter in which hon. Members are interested strikes even me, an enthusiast for the Jopling changes, as going a bit too far. However, I shall say no more about that.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), in his characteristically moderate way—and I mean that, even though he used a slightly overheated phrase—said that the Committee would not lie down and die. I never expected that it would, especially in view of the nature of some of its members. I am sure that, not unreasonably, they will continue to make their points.
I say to my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), as well as other hon. Members on both sides of the House, that I am glad that we have given them an opportunity to remind everyone of what the Committee has achieved. It has enabled me to pay tribute to it for the work that it has done. Actually, the loyalty being shown today by its members and the claims that they are making for their reports confirm my view about the merits of Select Committees as a whole and the important contribution they make—even though I am bound to say that my views on how they should be structured have not changed.
I was asked a number of specific points. First, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about a reprint of Standing Orders, I have been handed a note that I am trying to digest. I understand that a new volume of Standing Orders will be


printed for the start of the next Session, with all the Nolan, Jopling and other changes included. I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman—although it may not be so helpful to the Labour Deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber. I noticed earlier that he was clutching a dog-eared copy of the Standing Orders. No doubt he uses them as his bible whenever he wants to stir up trouble and create difficulties—[Interruption.] I am being attacked from behind by the Government Deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). If ever there was a mafia, the Deputy Chief Whips from the two sides of the House must be its core members.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for his remarks about minority parties. The hon. Member for Perry Barr answered on my behalf and made the right two points—that it is a matter for the Committee of Selection and that there is a global way of taking account of the representation of minority parties. If the hon. Gentleman were to make strong representations to the Chairman of the Selection Committee about his wish to serve on the new Employment and Education Committee, I am sure that proper weight would be given to that request within the overall position.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr bounced me with the question whether Select Committees could meet in recesses, to which the answer is yes. An oddity that I have resolved, while setting up the new Standards and Privileges Committee, is the fact that our oldest Committees have not been able to meet during recesses although the new Committees have been able to do so. I have brought the old Committees into line with the new ones.
If it is the ambition of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) or any other hon. Member to meet in the recess, 39 meetings between now and the end of February might prove to be a modest target. After all, the Select Committee considering the Nolan report, which I chaired, managed to meet on that number of occasions despite having been able to fit in only three meetings during the summer recess. Therefore, in a remarkably short House sitting time the Committee did a great deal of work. Indeed, in many weeks it sat for two or three hours, three or four days a week. I commend that example to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West in view of his desire to complete the work that he has undertaken.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to listen. I hope that I have shown that I have done so. Indeed, I have read the report published by his Committee. I have it here—it has a little red sticker on it saying "Immediate". My office was concerned that I should see the report almost hot off the press. I have also read the extensive letter that the hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, on 24 October.
The problem is that, having studied the report and read the letter, I had already heard all the arguments to which he is now asking me to respond and already responded to them in the points I made earlier, for example, a bigger Committee than intended, a considerable extension of time compared with what had been originally proposed and the power to create a Sub-Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, the power to

appoint a Sub-Committee was rubbished by the hon. and learned Gentleman as a way of burying or losing things. He should tell that to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who chaired the Civil Service Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which produced a report that has formed the basis of a new code. It was an effective and important report produced by a Sub-Committee.
At the end of the day, however reasonable I am and however much I would claim to have demonstrated my overwhelming reasonableness by the changes that I have already made, I cannot make any more.

Mr. Janner: I deeply regret what the Leader of the House has said in such good humour. Will he at least answer the question about the Central Statistical Office report that is due at the end of January and give the requested assurance to members of the Committee, so that we can at least have some hope of completing the work on that report well before the Committee is dissolved?

Mr. Newton: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the end of January in his letter—I understand that the likely date is either the end of January or mid-February—and it was one of the matters that I took into account. All in all, it is a reasonable compromise.
There is no doubt that it would be very messy if we did what the hon. and learned Gentleman and some members of his Committee have pressed for. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, we should then have a Committee interrelating with four Departments of State and four Departments of State trying to interrelate with a number of Committees. It would not be very long before that produced considerable problems for my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Liaison Committee as a succession of Committee Chairmen came to tell him that someone was poaching on their territory and that they could not do business like that.
As not only a reasonable man but very much a pragmatic man, I think that what I have proposed is, on balance, the best that I can do.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended—
(1) with effect from the beginning of the next Session—
(a) by inserting the following item after item 10 in the Table in paragraph (2):
Public Service/Office of Public Service (but excluding the drafting of bills by the Parliamentary Counsel Office)/11/3";
(b) in item 14 in the said Table, after the word 'Industry' in column 2, by inserting the words `(but excluding the Office of Science and Technology)';
(c) in item 16 in the said Table, by leaving out the words "and Civil Service" in column 1 and, in column 2, the words from "Treasury" in line 65 to "Board" in line 69; and
(d) in paragraph (3) by leaving out the words 'and Civil Service'; and
(2) with effect from Friday 1st March—
(a) by leaving out items 3 and 4 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following item:
Education and Employment/Department for Education and Employment/I3/4"; and
(b) in paragraph (3) by inserting at the beginning the words "The Education and Employment Committee,".

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
That Cheryl Gillan and Mr. William Powell be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Ian Bruce and Mr. Patrick Thompson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

Naval Personnel

Mr. David Jamieson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of former naval personnel who were exposed to asbestos in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s but who cannot claim compensation because of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Many of these naval personnel are now suffering from terminal illness.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the people of Plymouth and Devon Sheweth that naval veterans of the armed services are seeking redress for the serious illness caused by exposure to asbestos on the warships on which they served.
Wherefore your Humble Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urgently investigate the situation of affected servicemen and take steps to ensure that they are adequately cared for.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &amp;c.
The petition was collected by the Plymouth Evening Herald which, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, is an excellent newspaper. It is signed by Bill Luck, a constituent of mine who is suffering from the effects of asbestos, and by Alan Cooper and Sharon Wright from the Evening Herald who have done so much to bring the matter to the public's attention in our area. It is also signed by 13,000 other people in the Plymouth area.

To lie upon the Table.

East Sussex (Government Funding)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Not only was it a reasonable hour to have the previous debate, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, but it is a reasonable hour for this debate.
This is the final substantive debate of the parliamentary year, and it is only correct that a debate that covers a frightfully important subject affecting East Sussex, which can be said to be the font of parliamentary democracy in that Parliament was first set up after the battle of Lewes, should be the one with which to end the parliamentary year. I am speaking on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends from East Sussex and with whom I have discussed the subject of this debate. Some of them may contribute later.
As a final word of introduction, I should like to say what a great pleasure it is that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), is to respond to the debate. He must know more about local government than almost anyone else in the House. The debate is, of course, on various aspects of local government funding. As we have time on our side for once, I hope to cover a broad spectrum of subjects of which I have given my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary notice.
I deal first with the overall level of rate support grant for East Sussex. On the basis of the Chancellor's Budget statement last year, East Sussex county council is projecting an allowable increase of no more than 0.5 per cent. in 1996–97 and 1997–98. Followed through, that would mean a gap in resources of something like £16 million per annum, which means an 8 per cent. or £32 million reduction over the next two years.
It is open to question whether that projection by the Chancellor, which of course applies to overall Government funding for all Government expenditure, will be applied to the rate support grant in East Sussex or, indeed, anywhere else. Were it to apply, the county council has pointed out that it would lead to substantial reductions in the budgets for which it is responsible.
The county council has not attempted to announce its priorities or to give any guidance at all in the consideration of the budget for next year. It has, however, spread reductions pro rata across the board. In so doing, it has not acted as responsibly as it could have done and has certainly given no leadership in terms of consideration of what the reductions might be. For the interest of the House, I shall cite one or two examples.
The county council has suggested a reduction of £9.5 million in its education budget, a matter with which I shall deal later. It has suggested a reduction of £1.5 million for roads and transportation, a reduction of £300,000 for libraries and the arts and a £750,000 reduction for the fire service—although it would probably not be allowed to make such a cut as it would be contrary to Home Office requirements, which might reassure people living in the county. The council has proposed a cut of £3 million in its social services budget. Incidentally, that is a most peculiar cut, as the council has a £4 million surplus in its social services budget at this very moment.
I fear that the council is once again stirring up great concern among many people about what it might have to do were something or other to happen elsewhere.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend mentioned that the council was stirring up feelings. I can assure him that I have received some 500 letters from parents, many of whom who are shocked and appalled by the conclusions to which they have been driven by that report. Some believe that the county council will be compelled to introduce monumental cuts which will savage the educational system in East Sussex.

Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that fact. I shall deal with so-called education cuts in a moment.
The county council claims that its administrative costs are among the lowest in the country and that steps have already been taken to reduce expenses by cutting down on top management posts. I am not in a position to assess the validity of such claims, but, in view of his deep knowledge of local government, perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is.
The district auditor has accepted that any reductions in expenditure will be difficult to achieve. He pointed out that net expenditure on services is already well below the county median per head of population and that East Sussex ranks 28th out of the 39 English county areas. He also said that the county is in a sound financial state. In spite of the auditor's report, there are some questionable aspects of policy and expenditure. I shall cite three by way of illustration, although they are in no way exclusive.
In education, for example, £1.2 million of savings have been identified and are being achieved through the improved administration of school meals. I understand that only £500,000 has so far been allowed in this year's budget. That of itself allows considerable budget leeway, which is pretty important, as I shall remind the House when I speak specifically about education. It also raises the question, however, of whether similar administrative savings can be made elsewhere in education and, indeed, in other departments.
In social services, even though the county threatens the closure of homes and day centres, there is an apparent surplus of £4million—unspent—in this year's social services budget. If that is the case, or, indeed, if it is anywhere near the truth, it is near criminal that the county council is stirring up so many worries in people's minds about the cuts in social service expenditure—which it has done.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in each of its 700 beds, social services pays itself £100 a week per person more than it is prepared to pay the private sector'? It could, in fact, save itself another £4 million if it were to pay itself the same rate as it is prepared to pay the independent sector.

Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend is exactly right. To the best of my knowledge, the cost of keeping somebody in a county council rest home is in the region of £295 a week, whereas the cost to the county council of a person being in an independently run rest home is about £195 per week. If one extrapolates, the figure comes to about £4 million—an extremely large amount of money, particularly in the light of the county's enormous cost-cutting suggestions.
Having said all that, I know that there are matters of genuine concern. One is the cost of local government reorganisation. In that, East Sussex is unique in England, since in Brighton and Hove a joint unitary authority is being created out of two boroughs. I do not believe that there is any other instance of that anywhere in the country. That makes the matter very much more complicated than elsewhere, and considerable extra costs in preparing for that reorganisation are already being incurred.
From all accounts, there is a great spirit of co-operation between Brighton, Hove and East Sussex, and all the work together is going well; but, as far as I know, there is no additional Government allowance to cover the added cost to East Sussex, which is of genuine concern to the county.
A second matter of genuine concern is related to the technical question of the area cost adjustment. As the House will know, Ministers are inspecting the application of the area cost adjustment—the way in which local authorities in the south-east of England benefit from additional Government funding to meet the higher cost of providing services in that area. That comes to a substantial amount of money overall: £28 million a year, which is equivalent to about £100 on the average council tax bill.
I understand that, as that process is being reviewed in the coming year, there is a real risk that some of that money, if not all, will be withdrawn from the south-east of England and redistributed to other parts of England, which would leave the county in an extremely difficult budgetary situation unless an extra grant were made available to make up for it.
The third aspect of genuine concern—my concern may not carry all hon. Members—is the effect of capping. In an area where the vast majority of households pay council tax, local government can be held, and be seen to be held, responsible and answerable for its spending plans. With the reduction of the rates support grant as a proportion of the county council's total expenditure, that answerability is of course even further enhanced.
At the moment, for every £1 million that the council decides to spend over the rates support grant, approximately £3.75 is added to band D council tax bills. To put it another way, every additional 1 per cent. of expenditure increases council tax bills by 3.5 per cent. That of itself should act as a good political brake on a council's level of spending. It is far better than imposing a cap, which, quite honestly, allows local government to blame national Government for not being able to do the things that it feels it wants to do, or that it feels people want to have done for them in the local area.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite remarkable that, despite all the scaremongering at local level in East Sussex, which he has been explaining with great accuracy, and even though this Adjournment debate has started quite early in the parliamentary day, not a single representative of the Liberal Democrats is in the Chamber?

Mr. Rathbone: That is a good point, although one must point out that there are no Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament in East Sussex. Long may that continue! I shall return to that point in another context.
It seems that capping has two disadvantages—for an area such as East Sussex at least. It psychologically encourages councils to spend up to that limit, which is exactly what happened when the Liberal Democrats took control of East Sussex county council just three years ago. In the first year after they took over, they decided, contrary to all Conservative advice, to spend right up to their limit, and in the process take advantage of the cumulated balances that the Conservative administration had built up; indeed, they are still taking advantage of those balances.
The other great disadvantage, which runs across the whole country, is that capping tends to be applied equally across all counties, irrespective of expenditure needs. In East Sussex this year that has led to an inability—so the county claims—to spend the extra 3.1 per cent. grant on education which was made because of soaring school rolls. The money—believe it or not—was used to reduce council tax.
That cannot be what was in Ministers' minds when capping of East Sussex expenditure was introduced. I sincerely hope that the ministerial review of capping will conclude that capping for counties such as East Sussex should be removed. Failing that—I hope that that will not fail—I hope that there will be some way in which to ring-fence the funding for education so that it gets used for the purposes to which it is being applied, rather than, as has happened this year, for the reduction of council tax, however welcome that may be.
That leads me to the question of education funding, to which some of my hon. Friends have already referred. It is much in the news and in the minds of people in East Sussex because the county council has set up the Education Committee Strategic Forum which produced a so-called consultation report on so-called education cuts, which has caused desperate worries among parents, teachers and school governors everywhere. Those worries are deeply felt and they have been reflected in conversations, in meetings and in my mailbags and those of all my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent parts of East Sussex.
Terms such as "cash crisis" abound. They are based only on the quite correct commitment made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contain overall Government expenditure in this and future years. I say "quite correct" because that is the smack of firm, competent and considerably responsible Government. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirm whether there has ever been any similarity between such national expenditure targets and expenditure by local authorities generally, or by local authorities on education specifically? My belief is that there is no parallel between the two. Such parallels would certainly be peculiar in the light of the very specific reassurances by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and, indeed, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the importance of expenditure on education and the priority that should be given to it.
I fear that the truth is that East Sussex county council has been indulging in completely reprehensible political scaremongering rather than responsible contingency planning, as it claims. For that reason, I have asked for the report to be withdrawn and the consultation scaremongering to be brought to an end. I have had no response and I fear that I probably shall not receive one.
Council leaders and council officials claim that the consultation is an entirely non-political activity and that the concerns are well founded. That claim is made especially about the founding of what has come to be called the East Sussex schools campaign, which is based on the consultation process. The campaign contains within it a belief and a restatement over and again that East Sussex is being compelled to cut £24 million from the school budget when there is no such compulsion and there cannot be as the cuts do not exist. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can confirm that.
The East Sussex schools campaign refers to real doubt about future nursery education, when the county council arbitrarily and without any debate refused to consider joining the Government's nursery school voucher scheme, which was designed not only to maintain nursery education but to expand it.
The campaign also refers to the activities of schools and the marvellous job that is done within schools. The campaign has organised a meeting in the House of Commons in 10 days' time under the spurious title of "Excellence At Risk". The meeting has not been discussed with, and sponsorship has not been requested from, any of the East Sussex Members of Parliament, all of whom have a genuine concern to improve educational standards and educational funding in East Sussex. The meeting is under the sponsorship of the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), all of whom are Liberal Democrats who are far removed geographically from East Sussex—they could hardly be further removed. Is it not peculiar, therefore, that the claim is still made that the meeting is all about a non-party political consultation process? I fear that that is bunkum.
This well-orchestrated, politically inspired campaign, which is built round scaremongering proposals, is an attempt not only to cause maximum concern, in which respect it has been heart-rendingly successful, but to cover the less than whole-hearted commitment to education excellence of the Liberal Democrat-controlled East Sussex county council.
I call in witness the fact that education expenditure was 6 per cent. lower than the shire county average for the proportion of total expenditure spent on education in 1994, the most recent year for which comparative figures are available. I call in witness a huge balance of £6 million remaining in the education budget at the end of the previous fiscal year which implies less than full or necessary spend on education. I call in witness the complete lack of search for reductions in expenditure elsewhere which would enable the council to spend the considerable extra moneys made available by the Government for this year to cover the cost of rising student numbers—3.1 per cent. in standard spending assessment versus 1.2 per cent. in other areas.

Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that in schools in East Sussex the percentage of the teaching budget that is spent on supply teachers is 10 per cent., whereas in grant-maintained schools it is down to about 2 per cent? If the local authority schools could manage to get the number of supply teachers down to the level in grant-maintained schools, would not the schools have sufficient money not only to provide the education that we all wish to be provided but to end the campaign of cuts?

Mr. Rathbone: It sounds as if my hon. Friend has put her finger precisely on yet another example of administrative and professional costs which could be reduced to increase educational standards.
As with Government funding for health services, social services and practically everything else, there will never be enough money to do everything that everybody wants to do in education. The Government have to be responsible in proposing levels of public expenditure that reflect national economic interests, especially a continuing low rate of inflation. The county council has to be equally responsible in allocating funding between and within the services that it has to provide for the people living in its area. It is worrying, therefore, and much to be regretted that anyone should play politics with our children's education as the East Sussex education authority has been doing.
The House would agree that nothing is more important than a good education service and proper educational standards. The whole thrust of our Government's education policy has been devoted to achieving that. It should not and must not be placed in jeopardy; we are all committed to that.

Sir Peter Hordern: I think that my hon. Friend said that East Sussex county council was talking in terms of having to make a reduction of £24 million. He may be interested to know that West Sussex county council is talking in terms of having to make a cut of £25 million. It is extraordinary that the figures should be so similar; neither is based on anything in the public expenditure White Paper. In addition, West Sussex has enjoyed the highest increase in revenue support grant of any authority in the country.

Mr. Rathbone: I always welcome support from across the border, especially from my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). I welcome that support now and I believe that it underlines the absurdity of the awful, gossipy scaremongering in which East Sussex county council has been indulging. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his constituents have not been burdened with the same sort of scaremongering in West Sussex.
I now turn to a longer-term element of funding and planning for East Sussex which is causing considerable concern now—the current review of the East Sussex structure plan. Once again, the county council has produced proposals that cut across all good sense and that would threaten the character of the towns, villages and beautiful countryside of East Sussex. There are proposals for huge numbers of new homes to be built in East Sussex between 2006 and 2011. That seems a long way off, but the proposals are being discussed now and are causing concern now.
There are proposals for 800 new homes on the edge of Polegate, an enormous increase of 25 per cent. to that small town. There are proposals for new settlements—a peculiar new term which has crept into the planning language as if one was part of the wild west of America—somewhere between Polegate and Lewes, and somewhere between Lewes and Wivelsfield. They could amount to 10,000 homes, requiring considerable infrastructure as well as housing. What a horrendous erosion of magnificent countryside that would be. There are proposals to expand Sussex villages, such as Wivelsfield,

9
Newick, Ringmer and Ditchling, expansion that would put the character of those villages at risk. The developments are close to the south downs, in the beautiful Sussex weald, and are close to areas of outstanding natural beauty which I am sure you know only too well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Over the years, I have been in regular contact with Environment Ministers—including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—and their predecessors to plead for a more sophisticated reading of housing needs in the south-east generally and in East Sussex in particular. Special regard must be given to the drastic increase in single-occupancy homes which can and should be accommodated in cities and towns. I believe that there are 100,000 unoccupied houses in London, and there are at least 5,000 unoccupied houses in Brighton. I hope that the Government's review of requirements will benefit not only those people who come to live in the area but those people who have been established there for many years.
I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that the present requirements are not tablets handed down by national Government to the county councils to execute. It is my belief that the requirements have been agreed between the Government and those involved with the south-east regional plan, including representatives from all the councils in the south-east. There is continual liaison between the two as the figures become refined. If that is the case, it is ridiculous for local politicians to blame the Government for the plans, as the local county council is partly and jointly responsible for them.
Thousands of submissions were made to the county council during the recent consultation process seeking drastic and fundamental reconsideration of the structure plan review. I hope that East Sussex county council will heed those requests and that the Under-Secretary will be able to confirm to the House that the council is responsible for those plans and must react to the public consultation process.
I apologise to the House, as I have gone on at somewhat greater length than was my intention, but all the points that I have raised here this afternoon are close to the hearts of the people who live in East Sussex. They have expressed their worries to me and to my colleagues representing the county. I welcome the opportunity to raise those concerns with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I rise to do two things. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on giving the House the opportunity to discuss an important subject, and on putting the facts and figures of the matter so eloquently before the House. Secondly, I want to support as strongly as I can everything that my hon. Friend said. Perhaps I should take exception to my hon. Friend's remarks about the beautiful countryside of east Sussex as I have an entirely urban constituency, but I share his sentiments.
I support what my hon. Friend said about the area cost adjustment. That is very important, and he is entirely justified in saying that it should be maintained. I agree also with what my hon. Friend said about the cost of reorganisation,and about the rather unusual

reorganisation in East Sussex and its implications for the staff involved. I also support what he said about capping. He said that he might not find sympathy for his views from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but he made a valid point about the effect of capping in East Sussex.
Most of all, I support my hon. Friend's attack on the inexcusable scaremongering of the Liberal Democrats—who have been supported by Labour—in the county council. I visited the St. John's day centre in my constituency a couple of weeks ago. Any hon. Member would have been distressed to see the concern which has been caused to the elderly people who use that centre, and the quite unjustified alarm that has been given to them about the future of the centre's funding. My hon. Friend has set out the figures relating to the social services and to the £4 million surplus, and to frighten elderly people who use day centres on those grounds is totally inexcusable.
My hon. Friend rightly said that the worst manifestation of the scaremongering campaign has been seen in the education budget. During the past 15 years, I have witnessed a considerable improvement in the schools in my constituency. In general, we have a high standard and we can be proud of what they achieve and the quality of teaching they provide. It is distressing that head teachers, governors and—most of all—parents in my constituency have been so alarmed by the county council's scaremongering about massive cuts in funding of £24 million, or 10 per cent. The council has also pretended that the cuts will take place in one year, and blames it all on the Government.
The phoneyness and falseness of the campaign has been portrayed in the "East Sussex Education Committee Strategic Forum". The first page of the document is signed by the county education officer, and contains the revealing statement that
It is possible that up to 10 per cent. reductions in the budget may be necessary over this time".
The time referred to is the three years between 1996 and 1999. That puts the scaremongering campaign in its proper perspective.

Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the county treasurer's worst case scenario involves a reduction of only 8 per cent. overall?

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My hon. Friend powerfully reinforces my point about political scaremongering. The 8 per cent. to which the county treasurer refers would again be spread over three years, and would not be introduced in one year.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend to repeat a point which has been made, but it needs to be emphasised. The quotation from the county education officer is couched in moderate language. However, the notice issued by the three Liberal Democrat Members to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) referred—they have not even done us the courtesy of coming to the debate or informing us that they were sponsoring a meeting—draws attention to a meeting at which it was said that East Sussex would be "compelled" to accept £24 million cuts. I received many letters from constituents who attended meetings organised by governors and headmasters of schools and attended by parents and


teachers. They wrote to me to say that there would be no alternative but to knuckle under unless we made representations to the Government on the matter.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My hon. Friend vividly illustrates the party-political posturing which is causing alarm and concern. Responsible chief officers must stick accurately to the facts, and the county education officer's quote puts matter in perspective. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes about the document were entirely justified. The only proper and honourable course for the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council now is to withdraw the document and to apologise to those whom it has alarmed and scared by its campaign.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on obtaining it. The debate has been well attended by Conservative Members representing constituencies in East Sussex, and I am pleased to see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir D. Spencer) in the Chamber.
I shall develop some of the themes expressed so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes in his remarks. There is a pattern of politically inspired scaremongering by the Liberal Democrats and their Labour coalition partners in East Sussex. We have seen it occur in debates on libraries, social services, the fire service and education. There has been a series of well-timed announcements of considerable drama about cuts which have to be made—it is said—as a result of the wicked Conservative Government. Perhaps the most dramatic example was in the fire service. Within days or almost hours of announcing a new offshore firefighting facility, the council made another announcement that it was threatened by possible cuts. That is precisely the approach adopted by the current administration in East Sussex which is so destabilising. It is worrying for council tax payers, parents, governors and teachers and it must be destabilising for the staff who have to operate the services when they are subject to political ping-pong all the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes talked about social services. There are threats to close homes and day centres, yet there is on any view a projected substantial underspend this year on care in the community. That strikes me as remarkable because when I raise cases on behalf of my constituents the answer that I am given almost without exception is that there is a lack of resources—again, presumably, the Government's fault.
I have mentioned libraries, but let me deal with education. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes put a powerful case, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove, on education. In my constituency there is a substantial need and demand for pre-school education. I am sure that the same applies to the constituencies of my hon. Friends who are present this evening. I know that because of the activities of IPNA, the independent nursery operators, with which I have worked closely and from the various play groups that I have visited in recent months, many connected with the Pre-School Learning Alliance.
Contrary to its image in some parts of the world, Eastbourne is a town growing younger at a rapid rate. That means that there are many families with young

children. We all know—the evidence is striking—that children who have had the benefit of pre-school education in some form tend to do a lot better when they go into formal schooling. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), who is in her place, I was one of the first to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education when she made her announcement a few months ago about nursery education. I wrote to say how useful and valuable it would be if East Sussex was one of the authorities involved in the pilot scheme so that parents could be some of the first beneficiaries of the vouchers worth, say, £1,100 a year which would be made available for all four-year-olds so that they could have some form of pre-school education.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has already said, the suggestion that East Sussex should be part of the pilot scheme has been dismissed out of hand, not by the county council or the local education authority, or even by the East Sussex education committee, but by the chairman of that committee, Councillor Norcross. Barely had the suggestion been made than he issued a statement describing the scheme as a political con which he wanted nothing to do with. Not only have elected members of the authority not had the opportunity even to debate the issue but parents and children in my constituency and across East Sussex have been denied the opportunity of pre-school education.

Mrs. Lait: I know that my hon. Friend has read closely the draft consultation document. Does he agree that it is appalling, given the circumstances with regard to nursery education that he has outlined and the opportunities that would be available to parents to use the nursery vouchers, that one of the options for cuts suggested by the Liberal Democrats is nursery education?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right. I shall describe in a moment how I believe that whenever the so-called "cuts" are proposed, they tend to be the ones most likely to upset parents such as the teaching of French and music, special education and nursery schools.
The plain truth is that the East Sussex LEA is sulking because it wanted the Government to give it a big bag of money to run pre-school education the length and breadth of East Sussex. It did not want to see independent nurseries operated, heaven forbid, by the private sector, or even playgroups operated by committed people whether in church halls or more dedicated facilities. They wanted nursery education to be operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the LEA. That is exactly why it has reacted so precipitately against the Government's trial scheme. When one leaves aside all the political rhetoric that is flying around, what all this means is that a raft of children in my constituency and elsewhere will be denied the opportunity of pre-school education for the one and only time in their lives. That is exactly because of a politically motivated decision by the chairman of the education committee. As I have said, there was no consultation about that decision.
My hon. Friends have referred in some detail to the letters that we have been receiving. As I said when I spoke at the Ratton school awards ceremony in my constituency last Friday, I am not surprised that parents, governors and teachers have written to me in those terms and nor do I blame them. After all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if someone who seemed to know what he was talking about told you


that you were going to be hit on the head by a meteor, you would be worried about being hit on the head by a meteor, but that would not mean to say that it was right.
The disgraceful aspect of this episode is that people who know better because they are professionals or the councillors involved in the education part of the authority's work have allowed a document to go out widely in East Sussex which contains some massive and extremely pessimistic assumptions. Even Members of Parliament do not yet know the allocation for education spending for 1996–97. We will not know, and therefore East Sussex cannot know, what the allocation will be until after the Budget. I am pretty sure that education spending will rise. The only question is by how much.
I am sure that most of my constituents agree that the Government should try to control public spending and borrowing. Even the report recognises that
Opposition political parties do not suggest that a change of Government would lead to a dramatic change of policy.
I stress again that we cannot yet know the allocation for the coming year. East Sussex county council has at present a total budget of about £420 million. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes that it is difficult to believe that there is no scope for cutting waste and bureaucracy within that figure. We have heard how the LEA has just effected a saving of £1.2 million on school meals alone.
I wish to have assurances from the authors of the document that any increase in spending on education in East Sussex will be passed in full to the schools and not spent on central administration—

Mr. Rathbone: Or on a reduction in the council tax.

Mr. Waterson: Or, as my hon. Friend says, on a reduction in the council tax.
The council's reserves are estimated at some £15 million, whereas the figure recommended by the National Audit Office is only £8 million. It seems to me that judicious use of reserves plus cutting out any waste could produce significant additional funding for the chalkface—the schools themselves. It seems to me that some of the conclusions reached in this curious document about possible cuts are surprising and worrying. I suspect that they are designed to be worrying.
It is an abdication of the local education authority's responsibilities to invite people to tick boxes at the end of the report to show which cuts they prefer. Of course, if one's child is doing rather well at his or her music lessons, one will clearly not tick that box.
The truth is that we elect councillors to do the task of allocating significant resources, difficult though it sometimes is. Only councillors and the officers who advise them have the detailed information necessary to make those choices. One of the features of the Liberal Democrats, even when they temporarily win power in a local authority, is that they continue to behave as though they were in opposition. They do not like making decisions. It is in the nature of running any political organisation that decisions have to be made and it is a sad fact that they tend to upset one group or another. How much easier, even when one is nominally in charge, simply to abdicate that responsibility.
A considerable amount of money and officer time has been spent on producing the document, for no great purpose except to worry parents, governors and teachers. The report accepts that
the Education Service in East Sussex is relatively well funded. Pupil/teacher ratios in particular bear favourable comparisons".
Along with my colleagues, I will do all I can to continue to press for sufficient funding to maintain those high standards. I hope that when it is proved that these alarmist conclusions are not accurate, as I believe to be the case, the people of East Sussex will receive an apology from the architects of the document and the campaign behind it. People are playing politics with other people's lives and their aspirations for their children—the one thing about which almost everyone gets very passionate.
In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may have seen, as I did recently, that the Liberal Democrats have a new policy for what they call a "virtual Parliament", by which they mean Parliament being organised by video links and the Internet, so that hon. Members would not have to trouble themselves to come to this place, but could operate from their constituencies. That is quite appropriate for the Liberal Democrats because a virtual Parliament would merely confirm that they are virtually never here anyway, and tonight is no exception.
We have heard how the document was produced. It was based on specious assumptions, with strange conclusions, and it has been used as the basis for a campaign directed at parents, teachers and governors and, through them, at myself and fellow Conservative Members, and a campaign to be organised in the House, of which we have had no notice. That gives away the purpose behind the entire operation—to cause political trouble. It is not directed at the welfare of children in East Sussex.
That shows what the campaign is about. I hope that the people of East Sussex will realise how people have been trying to manipulate them and how remarkable it is that, despite the alleged seriousness of the issues, not a single Liberal Democrat is in the Chamber to participate in this debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for initiating the debate. Looking over my shoulder at one point, I began to wonder whether the East Sussex mafia—I think that almost every Conservative Member representing the county is present—was here as a lynching party. I am relieved that the pressure has landed on East Sussex county council, as it deserved.
This is a good opportunity to discuss some local government measures and local government resources. As hon. Member after hon. Member said, there appears to be a campaign. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who was described as an hon. Friend from across the border, pointed out, that county council is not the only one in the campaign, but it is interesting that the more virulent and unpleasant campaign seems to have come from the Liberal Democrats, with the Labour party not far behind.
Before coming to the House, I always saw such campaigns as "bleeding stumps" campaigns. At the last minute, when it is too late for people to react, the word


"cuts" comes out—it is never savings, always cuts. The alarmists use the opportunity to go for the most valuable and treasured service—the one that will hurt the most. They then threaten to cut it off and wave the bleeding stump around, hence the name of the syndrome. I am afraid that East Sussex is not the only authority to do so. Many others are doing the same—I could mention West Sussex, Nottinghamshire and a number of others.
There is a straight campaign, but this time it may have been carried too far. That certainly seems to be the case in East Sussex, as I have never seen so many cross Conservative Members of Parliament utilising the opportunity of a lengthened Adjournment debate. The vehemence was such that I feared that it would last until 10 o'clock.
As my hon. Friends are aware, local government spending for 1996–97 will be announced as part of the Budget statement on 28 November. As a result, they will appreciate that I am not in a position to answer some of the questions on the proposed settlement.
While we are talking about the figures and the fact that the council has utilised last year's and extrapolated from them, let me say that I find it interesting that, when local authorities look for increases they talk of percentages, but when they are talking of cuts they use figures. Of course, figures are more dramatic in the minds of the people whom they are trying to frighten.
I am aware that the total amounts involved in the local government settlement for 1995–96 were not as much as local authorities wished. I do not think that they ever have been. Total standard spending rose by 2.2 per cent., however, which was a fair settlement. I believe, particularly because of my background, that local authorities have sufficient resources to carry out their functions. It is too easy for an authority to pick a wish list, add new demands, add it all up—the taxpayer picks up the bill—and, if it is not arrived at, say that it is the result of cuts.
There ought to be a change. We must recognise the importance to the economy of the way in which local authorities spend their finances. About 25 per cent. of Government expenditure is local government expenditure. It is just as important for local government to squeeze effectiveness out of every drop of other people's money spent as it is for central Government. We need local authorities to look to that. They must realise that they can squeeze full value out of every pound that they spend. They must be more efficient and provide better services. An old local authority motto is, "More services, better services, but for less cost." It can be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and others highlighted issues relating to East Sussex and areas of savings. It is a lesson to councillors that, if Members of Parliament without the expertise, the figures and the official advice that they would receive if they were councillors, can find the savings, it ill behoves the local authority not to do the same by utilising the expertise at its disposal.
Each local authority has its own problems and, equally, should sort out its own local solutions. The Government's responsibility is for the overall level of resources available to local government and for the fluidity of the means of resource distribution among authorities.
Every year, we have to set the demands of local authorities in the context of what the country can afford as a whole and that is right. Local government spending

accounts for a quarter of all public spending and no Government, including—in the dim and distant past—the last Labour Government, could afford to ignore it. No Government will in the future.
Public spending decisions are made in the context of a medium-term financial strategy to promote sustained economic growth and thus ensure higher living standards. The best way to protect local government services is to ensure that the national economy is strong and inflation under control. To that end, we must continue to seek better use of existing public expenditure and to keep control of public sector bills. Both local and central Government have essential parts to play in bringing about those benefits.
I have no doubt—this has been illustrated tonight—that there is still scope for increased efficiency in East Sussex and in every other local authority despite the claim made by some, or many, that the potential for more effective working has been exhausted. If successful private business can use every opportunity to find a better way of doing things at better value, and bearing in mind the fact that nothing stays the same in business—after all, the provision of public services is a business—such opportunities should be taken by local authorities.
The local authority associations acknowledge that significant efficiency gains are there for the taking. In effect, we need less whingeing and more action. I was interested in the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes about administration and East Sussex's claim that it is among the best local authorities. Anyone who examined the figures would question that.
For example, consider the number of central full-time administrators per thousand of population: in Essex, it is 12.1; in Hampshire, 12.5; in Kent, 13.1; in Surrey, 11.6; and in West Sussex, 13.2, giving an average of 12.5. West Sussex, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham noted, has the highest figure among that small contingent of councils. However, East Sussex outdoes it with a figure of 14.4. That could mean that some considerable savings are available.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I apologise for not being here earlier in the debate.
I suspect that East Sussex county council is trying to put up a smokescreen to conceal its inefficiency, given the excessive number of administrators in relation to the county's population. What makes me angry is that the way in which it has presented information has frightened parents and teachers and misled even governing bodies.
I received a copy of a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister by the chairman of a governing body which said specifically, without qualification, that, as a result of Government action, £26 million would be cut from the education budget in the next financial year. There was no qualification at all. I can only say that the chairman of that governing body—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was late and wants to contribute, but his intervention is turning into a speech.

Sir Andrew Bowden: May I ask a question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister.

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is right. He has put down, as a physician would say, the diagnostic pointers to what I call the "bleeding stumps" syndrome. That is exactly what we are talking about.
I shall give one or two other examples. Standard spending assessment per head for this financial year is in the region of £570. East Sussex ranks slightly above the middle figure for all the counties. If other counties can provide the same service, or better, for less, perhaps East Sussex should take a hint. On the SSA for education, East Sussex is the second highest out of 38 counties. West Sussex, since my hon. right Friend the Member for Horsham is here, is 11 th. The complaints and the whingeing do not carry the weight that they ought to.
Much has been made of area cost adjustment. This is analysed each year using the data available from the previous year. The data are distributed to the local authority associations and this year went out in August. East Sussex should be aware, unless communications have completely broken down, that the data show a shift of 0.5 per cent. Yes, that is negative, but it is 0.5 per cent. and not quite what the bleeding stumps syndrome diagnosis would suggest.
Education funding has been raised as a matter of special concern, mainly because parents feel vulnerable. Local education authorities have faced some tight decisions in setting their budgets this year, but I do not believe or accept that they need to do anything that would lead to a drop in standards. In fact, with a little imagination, they could improve them, especially when we remember that schools, as well as local authorities, have a variety of means with which to make efficiency gains and to improve standards without incurring extra costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) gave an example—and that was from somebody who is not at the chalk face and who does not have the figures available. If they are easily available for her to give to the House, I am quite sure that the local authority could do that, and more.
As has been mentioned, the Prime Minister has said that education will be given priority as the economy delivers further growth. Successive settlements have taken into account factors such as the increase in pupils, and future settlements will continue to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes questioned ring fencing. I do not agree with him. The vast majority of government funding for local authority spending on education is provided by way of an un-ring-fenced grant, if hon. Members will excuse the awkward phrase. I believe that that should remain so because local authorities are best placed to decide their spending priorities in the light of local needs and the available resources. The Government cannot dictate such minutiae, and as an ex-local government member, I think that it is vital that local authorities have that opportunity but that they are then held responsible by the public for those decisions rather than shirking them with the sort of campaign that East Sussex is pursuing.
It is important for local democracy that there is a choice available but it is also important for local accountability. Local authorities must be answerable to their electorate, and I hope that in six months, or in a year's time, we may be able to review what has been said by East Sussex and question its decisions and alarmist statements. I hope that parents and governors will also do that and reflect on what has been said and on what has happened and what could have happened, especially if all the local education funding was not allocated to the schools.
Mention was made of nurseries and vouchers and the rather dog-in-the-manger attitude taken by East Sussex. I remember, before the days of vouchers, as someone who was involved in a unitary authority, being interested in the opportunity that was offered. That authority, with no positive shift in Government spending, was able to use the availability of nurseries and nursery education in such a way that it was able to offer every three and four-year-old child nursery education free, without nursery vouchers. In addition, it encouraged private sector nurseries and nursery education and a top-and-tailing, or latchkey, system. If that was possible in the difficult parts of central London in which many of us have worked as local authority members, I should have thought that it would be simple for a local authority such as East Sussex to do the same. The opportunity of vouchers is a challenge for local authorities to meet, if they are capable of outdoing the private sector.
Once the total resources available for local government have been decided, they will be distributed according to need. Each year, the standard spending assessment methodology is discussed in detail and at length with representatives of local government, and each year it is updated and improved. It is an open and fair system. The difficulty that I have with it is that it began as a simple system and the refinements seem to make it worse day by day.
One element of the distribution formula that always gives rise to arguments is the area cost adjustment. No one disputes the fact that some adjustment to take account of higher costs in some parts of the country is needed, but those who get it say that they are not getting enough and those who do not, say that those getting it are getting too much. The Government cannot win.
Both my Department and the local authority associations carried out work on the area cost adjustment this year. The Department commissioned research intended to see whether the zones used for the area cost adjustment could be defined more satisfactorily, particularly by reference to travel-to-work areas. The associations carried out further analysis of those higher costs in London and the south-east. They also sought to define alternative ways of determining the area cost adjustment.
Despite that work, we have had to conclude that, so far, we have nothing that is sufficiently well founded to provide a basis for the area cost adjustment which we could be confident represented an improvement. We accept, however, that the present methodology causes considerable dissatisfaction outside the south-east. We need to continue to investigate potential improvements.
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration met leaders of the local authority associations on 16 October to discuss concerns about the effects if changes were made to the area cost adjustment. During the meeting, he proposed to the local authority associations that we set up an independent review of the area cost adjustment. We would ask it to seek a basis for the area cost adjustment that is conceptually sound, achieves the widest possible acceptance among local authorities in all parts of the country, and is practical to apply—there is nothing like hoping.
We have suggested to the associations that the review be steered by a group of three, chaired by a leading academic economist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no!"] I note


the cynicism. The other members would be a nominee of the local authority associations and a nominee of the Department. We would expect the review to require research to be commissioned, the cost of which would be met by the Department. We would ask for the review to be completed by June 1996, so that its findings could be taken into account when determining the standard spending assessments for the following year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes mentioned capping. That subject comes up for discussion every year. Hon. Members will understand that capping has been successful in ensuring that all authorities play their part in the restraint of public expenditure, and it has protected council tax payers from high bills. As hon. Members will know from some of the conferences—one in particular—there are two sides to the argument. The Secretary of State and I are well aware of the debate, but the abolition of capping could lead to increases in council taxes and hence to higher public expenditure. Moreover, such increases feed through to Government spending on benefits. Such a policy would therefore conflict with our stated aim to reduce the share of the nation's wealth that is taken by the public sector.
Nevertheless, this year, as every year, we are considering our approach to capping as part of the next local government finance settlement. The Secretary of State will announce his intentions for capping at the same time as his proposals for the 1996–97 settlement. As in previous years, he will be happy to meet authorities to allow them to make representations, once that announcement has been made.
It has been mentioned that East Sussex is spending at its capping limit. It is inherent in the rationale behind capping that, for local authorities budgeting above their SSA, increases in SSA do not necessarily feed through into increases in the cap limit. That is to ensure that, over time, such authorities bring their budgets into closer alignment with their SSAs. As I have said, I am not in a position at this stage to signal any proposals for capping. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to wait for the announcement, but he will have expected that.
My hon. Friend also mentioned housing requirements. I understand that the county council's suggestion that continuing housing requirements in the county might be met by completely new settlements has aroused strong feelings—to put it mildly. This option is considered in its draft—I emphasise the word, "draft"—proposals for housing and employment on which it has recently consulted the public as part of the structure plan review. That document makes it clear that no decisions have been taken on the draft proposals, and that the views of the

local people, especially, I hope, of local Members of Parliament, are important to the council in deciding where new developments might be accommodated in the country.
I hope that local people will take the opportunity to make their views known to the county council so that those can be taken into account in developing the new draft plan. There will be a further opportunity to make representations in the new year, and an examination in public may be held on selected issues before an independent panel, which would report to the county council and may recommend changes. If the council makes changes, it must advertise them and provide another opportunity for objections and representations to be made. In that way, the development plan system allows for appropriate consideration of development needs and can meet those in a way that is sensitive to other key planning objectives of conserving the countryside and the built heritage.
This has been an interesting debate. I hope that Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors in East Sussex take note of the points that have been made and recognise that they are scaremongering. A final example of that was the prospect of Brighton and Hove unitary authority not gaining finances that would be available to other shadow authorities. That is not so. It will be treated no differently from other shadow authorities. I know from my experience of the delightful disappearance of the Greater London council, followed by that of the Inner London education authority, and of the development of unitary authorities within London, that the opportunities for efficiency savings to produce better services for less for the public in general were massive in unitary authority areas. I hope that, especially in the case of Brighton and Hove, where two authorities are linked and then become a unitary authority, the opportunity for even greater savings are recognised and achieved.
The Liberal Democrats distribute at irregular intervals a leaflet called "Focus". I hope that they recognise that, in any good business, as one sets one's budget at the beginning of the financial year, one focuses on the anticipated shifts in expenditure throughout that financial year through to the next. To leave it to this stage to look for savings might mean that cuts must be imposed. That is the fault of members of the local authority. Looking over my shoulder, I anticipate that Conservative Members of Parliament will drum that message home vehemently and try to spell out to parents that the "bleeding stump" syndrome does not exist if the local authority is efficient.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Seven o'clock.